On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:09:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> For what it is worth, at work we had to install Lenny on
>> machines which have the broadcom netextreme 2 ethernet cards (bnx2
>> firmware needed). The netinst installer worked w
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used
> to.
> It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. (...)
> I get no joy whatsoever out of the current mailing list
> discussions. (...) We're here to mak
The problem is you can't wave a magic wand, and fix the community.
It's a self-feeding cycle which goes on and on and on. Even if we had
a Code of Conduct for Debian, unless it was strongly enforced, its the
same problem.
Whether the ballot was valid or not was immaterial, the response to it
was c
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
> as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
> all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
> in performing their duties.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
> of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
> package
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:50:40AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Let us face it: there are always going to be bits of hardware
> that can not be supported with free software; users might always have
> to deal with either refraining from buying such hardware (which is not
> always feas
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> > (or at least I) mightn't expect.
> > ...
> > Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
> I'm not too surprised
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Putting an USB key into most of my servers requires some hours of
> driving and jumping through security hoops to get datacenter access.
> [...]
> I'd prefer an OS which allows full remote installation that does not
> need some kind of p
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time that this is not the
> case, you should assume t
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> > the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
> > of the secretary (contrary
Hi John,
very well said, thanks. I suggest everyone to go back and read his mail.
http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1483 is also a nice read about what working
together nicely can achieve. I miss that in Debian.
I have now decided to unsubscribe from -vote and -devel, the gain/pain ratio
has become
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> > say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:35:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You
> > cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though
> > temporarily, bypa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
> that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
> installs.
If (almost?) everyone will use non-free stuff anyway, why not just make
l
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
> > document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
> > simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
> > say, a
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone proposes a GR saying "we will ship the binary NVidia
dri
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used
> to.
>
> It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. I probably
> shouldn't write this tired at 11:30PM, but here goes.
>
> I get no joy whatsoever out o
> Now if only we could say positive things about people BEFORE they
> resign, wouldn't this be a better place?
+1E6
John, thank you for taking the time to write and post that note. I couldn't
agree more.
When Manoj and I joined the Debian project, there were only a couple dozen of
us, and
we
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:44:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
> > that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
> > i
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> > > say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
> >
> > I wouldn't say that it is that eas
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> > document. Otherwise it doesn't.
>
> So, if someon
Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> If we make users have to decide between the "100% free installer" and
> the "installer with non-free", and it makes the user have to think about
> "what is this non-free stuff, and why should I care". I think it is an
> added side benefit. If a user at some point decides
Didier Raboud wrote:
> Providing a guaranteed (as much of Debian's knowledge) free Linux kernel
> and installer in main would be really fulfilling Debian's promises. This
> does not necessarily exclude providing a "contaminated" installer and/or
> kernel in contrib (or elsewhere).
I just forgot s
On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane
> and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in
> a bad situation anyway. :-)
Insanity is subjective. In some sense, some of the the
interpretations of ou
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>
>> > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
>> > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:36:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:50:40AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > To paraphrase: Those who give up essential freedoms for
> > temporary convenience and popularity deserve neither.
> This is something we need to agree
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Putting an USB key into most of my servers requires some hours of
>> driving and jumping through security hoops to get datacenter access.
>> [...]
>> I'd prefer an OS which allows full remote
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:00:26PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> > > petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
> > > to
Le vendredi 19 décembre 2008 à 12:36 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :
> This is something we need to agree to disagree on. There are people
> who still focus on "The Universal Operating System", and who are
> willing to make compromises in freedom without being willing to make a
> totally non-free OS.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> > document. Otherwise it doesn't.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:28:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> In short, the ongoing GR isn’t about this disagreement, for which a
> suitable compromise already exists; it is about imposing more
> restrictions on the stable release than on the unstable suite.
I do not know about anyone els
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 07:47:50AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> project atmosphere. The only way we can "get things back on track"
> and re-focus our energy on the real reason we are all here... to
> create a free operating system...
I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all he
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
> too. I am going to spend the next few days evaluating how important the
> proje
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:04:55PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > project atmosphere. The only way we can "get things back on track"
> > and re-focus our energy on the real reason we are all here... to
> > create a free operating system...
>
> I believe that part of the problem is that we are not a
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied the
proposal belo
Matthew Johnson writes:
> So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says
> "we will do X" but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it
> would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all?
> What's the point?
Here's the way I see it, which I thi
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social
> | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future;
> | _AND_ the social contract
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
> the ftp-masters, and the release team with a clear cut
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing
> it:
>
> The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is
> to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the
> project wants. They do
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social contract sh
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
>> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
>> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
>> the ft
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, DPL interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, secretary interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, tech ctte interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, individuals interpret
[ ] The Social contrac
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I do ont think that determining who interprets the
> non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot.
That seems entirely reasonable to me, and I agree on the undesireability
of combinatorial explosion of the ballot.
> It is a flaw in the co
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If we're going to have a vote on this topic, I feel quite strongly that
> every option which states the social contract is binding should include in
> it a constitutional amendment specifying *who* decides for the project
> what those
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project
>> is to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what
>> the project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything.
> But... _
Le Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract
> [ ] The social contract is binding, but currently flawed
> [ ] The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR
> [ ] The social contract is a goal, n
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There's nothing in the consititution that prohibits passing nonsensical
> GRs or GRs that contradict foundation documents, as long as they don't
> actually alter the foundation documents.
Given a ballot option which does not explicitly specify whether or
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
>> across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True
>> Meaning that exists outside of the governance process. The words mean
>> what p
Noah Meyerhans writes:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:04:55PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all here to
> > create "a free operating system". I have the impression that some
> > developers merely wish to create "an operating system", or perhaps
>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
> optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
They were drafted before the constitution was and their binding power does
*not* flow *
On Fri Dec 19 14:00, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
> > On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
> >> across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True
> >> Meaning that exists outside
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "fou
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires
> only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution,
> to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you
> override the ftp-master's d
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
>> optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
>
> They were drafted before the constit
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
> Furthermore, by my reading of the constitution, even if a delegate
> override or a position statement clearly and obviously contradicted the
> DFSG, as long as it doesn't actually change or set aside the DFSG, it's
> still just
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
>> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
>> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
>> d
aj wrote:
> Joey Hess
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
Anyway, it's always interesting to se
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:09:32PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who
> > didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the
> > voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position stateme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:00:59PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> "We need some time to solve the problems that are in main" the first
> time round I can live with, but uploading new instances of the same
> problems to main,
I think this is a strawman that doesn't correspond either to what has
actual
> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple
> > > GR ]
> > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > > | s
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
> >> principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you will,
> >> market share).
> >> To para
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
> state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
> dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social cont
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> >> I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
>> >> principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you
67 matches
Mail list logo
