Re: DEP5: X-Autobuild

[Andreas Barth]

* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]:
> > Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an
> > XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is
> > required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in
> > debian/copyright? Would not the Disclaimer field be sufficient?
> > 
> > I propose to remove the entire paragraph. If the consensus is against
> > that, I propose we rename the field to Non-Free-Autobuild instead of
> > using an X- prefix.

>  - describe the fact that the package is autobuildable in debian/copyright,
> 
> X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there
> is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing
> ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer.

We need both, the mail plus the field.


Reason for this is that we don't have an separate section in the
archive, so we need to make sure it's signed with every upload. On the
other hand, we want to manually approve each package - that's why we
need the mail.


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100914183435.gv2...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: DEP5: X-Autobuild

[Andreas Barth]

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [100915 17:39]:
> Andreas Barth  writes:
> > * Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]:
> >> > Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an
> >> > XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is
> >> > required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in
> >> > debian/copyright? Would not the Disclaimer field be sufficient?
> >> > 
> >> > I propose to remove the entire paragraph. If the consensus is against
> >> > that, I propose we rename the field to Non-Free-Autobuild instead of
> >> > using an X- prefix.
> >>  - describe the fact that the package is autobuildable in debian/copyright,
> >> 
> >> X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there
> >> is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing
> >> ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer.
> > We need both, the mail plus the field.
> 
> This is only about the field in debian/copyright, not about the field in
> debian/control. We don't need the former, only the latter.

Oh, sure. Technically, we even only need something in Sources (but
that is derived from d/control).



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915154927.gy2...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Please update the DSA delegation

[Andreas Barth]

Hi Lucas,

* Martin Zobel-Helas (zo...@debian.org) [131202 22:11]:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a
> full member of the team.
> 
> Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators
> accordingly.

Did I miss the conclusion on this? Is Héctor Orón Martínez now part of
the delegated DSA team? Or do you have reasons to not make him a
normal DSA member? Or do you think that the delegation is auto-updated?

(Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the
current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and
don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically
delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current
delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an
official update.)


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104130426.gh16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Please update the DSA delegation

[Andreas Barth]

* Lucas Nussbaum (lea...@debian.org) [140104 16:30]:
> On 04/01/14 at 14:04 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> See https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00049.html

thanks.

> > (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the
> > current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and
> > don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically
> > delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current
> > delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an
> > official update.)
> 
> I disagree with that, as stated in e.g.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00032.html and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00036.html . But that
> does not mean that you should not try to change the constitution to add
> this process.

Well, this doesn't convince me - but it's not important enough for me
to start an GR here, or even to continue discussing about that. I
could live with that. :)


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104163506.gi16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140106 17:22]:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> > .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
> > already used in
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg6.html and 
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg4.html)
> 
> Sorry I didn't spot it earlier :-).

Historically I think delegating a policy team started with
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00017.html



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140106173212.gj16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: TC voting and governance process

[Andreas Barth]

* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140211 06:57]:
> Joey Hess  writes:
> 
> > OTOH, if the ctte is still stuck in a procedural morass after the full
> > 3-4 weeks it takes to pass a GR, it could be a lifeline that lets it
> > decide on a better decision making procedure. Even if that ends up being
> > "we decide by consensus and we have none re systemd".
> 
> So, well, the only thing that I do feel obligated to say about this is:
> 
> http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-01/026.html
> 
> I have had people subsequently point out to me that this post is not being
> entirely fair to Wikipedia, and I apologize for that part, but I stand by
> the general principles that I posted there.  (And observe that the group
> size is not magic that leads to consensus *always* working.  We failed at
> consensus in a group of eight.)

Just a side note, I already failed to consensus in a group of two.
(However, it was not nearly as important as this issue, so it was more
easy to resolve - we ended up with delegating the topic to the tech
ctte, where we didn't end up with consensus either but with a
decision.)

Also, I don't think we need to go for consensus. Consensus is good,
but I think what we should looking hard for is that everyone could
consider the winning option as acceptable, i.e. voting that above FD.
It's ok if an option wins which is just a bit better than FD for all.
Also, I don't think that in cases we have relevant different opinions
we need to hide them - having options explicitly voted down might be
healty because we are not hiding different positions but some just
don't get majority.


> Sometimes it really is better to have a decision you don't agree with than
> no decision.

That is a very true remark.

One important (and useful) part of well working procedures is that
even people who don't agree to the outcome can agree that the project
has decided this outcome. And if you can agree to the second, this is
good for future collaboration.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140211082801.gc16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init 
> > systems"):
> > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > written.
> > 
> > Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a
> > 1:1 majority ?  If so, can you please say how.
> > 
> > If you're going to say we need to replace "the TC resolution is
> > amended" with something like "we wish that instead the TC had decided
> > blah", then please reconsider.  That would force the GR to avoid
> > saying what its own effect is, which is unnecessarily confusing.
> > Also, writing that text is very cumbersome.
> 
> The text currently says it's using the TC's power to decide
> something, and so would fall under 4.1.4.  I think the intent of
> this GR is not to override the TC's decision about the default, so
> I'm currently not sure what to suggest.


I don't see why the text couldn't just say that the developers make a
position statement. As per 4.1.5 this could be done with a
1:1-majority.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302112638.gq16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init 
> > > > systems"):
> > > > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > > > written.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a
> > > > 1:1 majority ?  If so, can you please say how.
> > > > 
> > > > If you're going to say we need to replace "the TC resolution is
> > > > amended" with something like "we wish that instead the TC had decided
> > > > blah", then please reconsider.  That would force the GR to avoid
> > > > saying what its own effect is, which is unnecessarily confusing.
> > > > Also, writing that text is very cumbersome.
> > > 
> > > The text currently says it's using the TC's power to decide
> > > something, and so would fall under 4.1.4.  I think the intent of
> > > this GR is not to override the TC's decision about the default, so
> > > I'm currently not sure what to suggest.
> > 
> > I don't see why the text couldn't just say that the developers make a
> > position statement. As per 4.1.5 this could be done with a
> > 1:1-majority.
> 
> This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
> default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
> doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
> having a decision about the default.

Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this
proposal wants to achive)?



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302120646.gr16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140302 13:07]:
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this
> proposal wants to achive)?

(and probably with "this position statement", because that is what it
is)



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302120820.gs16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
> Andreas Barth  writes:
> 
> > Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> > How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> > decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> > clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this
> > proposal wants to achive)?
> 
> I thought my original text was reasonably clear that it wasn't seeking
> to change the default init system for jessie...?

It looks to me as the secretary doesn't fully agree with that, so
perhaps some extra clarifiaction. But well, as long as we manage to
have a common understanding what your text means it's ok for me.


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302174357.gt16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Huh?  Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system.  It doesn't
> > overturn it.
> 
> The fact there's a backdoor that was inserted that allowed him to
> overturn the TC decision with a GR that mentions the word init is
> absurd.

I don't know what you try to make about, but 

1. the proposed GR doesn't overturn TCs decision about the default
Linux init system, but holds that one up and adds something about
loose coupling of init systems and packages[1]

2. the possibility to overturn TCs decision was inserted *by*
*purpose* with our the common understanding of all TC members that if
the developers together want to overturn our decision they should be
able to do so with normal (1:1) majority. This was part of the
proposals with systemd as Linux default and also with upstart as Linux
default.


[1] whether you think that's a good idea is something else, but this
was not part by the TCs decision of the default Linux system, and the
TC decided later on to not make a decision about that (yet). So I fear
I need to summarize your mails on "useless escalation" which I don't
consider helpful. Sorry.


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302182134.gu16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
> Colin Watson  writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote.  The GR
> >> > text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default, and
> >> > adds to it.
> > [...]
> >>   2) Dishonest (using an unrelated GR to turn over the default init
> >>  decision made through a backdoor you put in)
> >
> > Huh?  Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system.  It doesn't
> > overturn it.
> 
> The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision
> at all.  Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the
> default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to invoke the GR
> clause in that resolution at all.
> 
> Why isn't this just a standalone GR asserting a "position statement
> about issues of the day" on the coupling question?

I mostly agree on that (and would prefer to see it that way). With the
small exception that it would be good to explicitly state that this
position statement doesn't invoke the auto-nuke clause of our
decision.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302182235.gv16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Andreas Barth]

* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
> The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
> 
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > […]  
> > That doesn't contradict the GR.  If the GR passes we have two
> > resolutions:
> > 
> >  11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
>
> 
> sysvinit comes from?

I think a qualified spelling error, and should read as "systemd as
default, loose coupling".



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302184104.gw16...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity

[Andreas Barth]

* Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140426 23:42]:
> * Debian Deutschland e.V.
> * DebConf Deutschland e.V.
> * DebConf15 Deutschland e.V.
> 
> From our understanding, German tax authorities don't like
> throw-away/single-use non-profit organisations, but we have no proof
> of that, so please speak up if you have experience.

I'm running some throw-away non-profit organisations, and have not
experienced problems.

Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup
(especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we
like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce
long-term overhead. Also, having that seperated, reduces the risks
from debconf on "normal" debian assets. For this reason, I would
recommend to have a throw-away legal entity for debconf, and
independendly form a debian-owned legal umbrella in Germany.



> Also, at least
> Ganneff and me would be willing to carry on the e.V. after DebConf15
> if this is deemed useful to Debian. Given FFIS' performance (the above
> isn't a one-time event only, it's been this way for a long time), this
> seems likely.

I think it would be a good idea to have a Debian Deutschland e.V., but
as written above it might be better to instantiate that independend of
Debconf15 e.V.


> Also, having "Debian" in the name can help with finding sponsors.

You can use that name independend of how the legal umbrella is named.
One of my legal umbrellas is named "Trägerverein HST", but runs the
brand "Horber Schienen-Tage". This naming has not caused any issues.
The relation between Debconf, the Debconf15 e.V. and Debian would be
similar - related but not the same letters.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426222930.gt20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity

[Andreas Barth]

* Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140427 00:40]:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Andreas Barth  wrote:
> 
> > I'm running some throw-away non-profit organisations, and have not
> > experienced problems.
> 
> Have the tax authorities been made aware of this in advance? For how
> long are those organisations running?

The most throw-away one is supposed to run 1-2 years, and is just in
startup (could actually only start when someone else starts complying
with law, but already accepted as non-profit; btw, it was founded by
another already accepted non-profit organisation for risk reduction
and to clean up the tax situation). Nobody put a big sticker on it
"this will dissolve itself soon", but the by-law indicates so. (For
this reason, after some more thinking I wouldn't recommend to name it
"Debconf15 e.V", but rather "Debconf Deutschland e.V.".)




> > Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup
> > (especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we
> > like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce
> > long-term overhead.
> 
> I fail to see how, please expand.

If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship
might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere),
then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of the
Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain limit,
and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that limit.
Additionable it could save money to be VAT-taxable because it might be
that you need to pay less VAT than you could substract from the goods
you buy. All of that is a bit more complex (and legally binding for a
couple of years) than a normal TO would need, and also needs binding
answers from the tax authorities before.




> > Also, having that seperated, reduces the risks
> > from debconf on "normal" debian assets. For this reason, I would
> > recommend to have a throw-away legal entity for debconf, and
> > independendly form a debian-owned legal umbrella in Germany.
> 
> As this organisation will not hold non-DebConf Debian money or other
> assets at first anyway, I do not see any risk.
> And even if it does, I am still not sure what the actual risks would
> be unless you assume we will run DebConf15 deep into red figures.

Perhaps I'm just careful, but I have setup legal umbrellas in cases
where I already had a tax-exempt one for risk reduction and tax
simplification (even with the existing one as founding member of the
new organisation, so with a clear bound and approval of the board of
the existing one). It isn't expansive to do so, but makes sure you
don't need to keep up any of the debconf-specialities you do, that's
why I would just do that again.


Also, it would buy us time to get the (rather complex) things about
"how to bind it to Debian" done right, because that indeed isn't that
easy in the German legal system, and sort out a few other things.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426230952.gs18...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140427 01:10]:
> * Richard Hartmann (richih.mailingl...@gmail.com) [140427 00:40]:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Andreas Barth  wrote:

> > > Debconf has a different tax situation than a normal TO setup
> > > (especially given the amount of money might bring us into VAT if we
> > > like it or not), so keeping those apart has some advantages to reduce
> > > long-term overhead.
> > 
> > I fail to see how, please expand.
> 
> If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship
> might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere),
> then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of the
> Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain limit,
> and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that limit.
> Additionable it could save money to be VAT-taxable because it might be
> that you need to pay less VAT than you could substract from the goods
> you buy. All of that is a bit more complex (and legally binding for a
> couple of years) than a normal TO would need, and also needs binding
> answers from the tax authorities before.

Please see
http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/application/stmug_app28?SID=1886820523&ACTIONxSESSxSHOWPIC%28BILDxKEY:06003006,BILDxCLASS:Artikel,BILDxTYPE:PDF%29
for a few more details about which taxes need to be payed. It also
contains a short by-law template which is sufficient for being
tax-exempt (page 112ff).



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140426232157.gu20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity

[Andreas Barth]

* martin f krafft (madd...@debian.org) [140427 08:31]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth  [2014-04-27 01:09 +0200]:
> > If you get money where you provide some value for (and sponsorship
> > might fall into that category, if e.g. logos are shown somewhere),
> > then this money is VAT-taxable (unless one of the exceptions of
> > the Umsatzsteuergesetz is applicable) if it is more than a certain
> > limit, and the amount of money debconf is using is well above that
> > limit.
> 
> § 4 Abs. 22 röm. a) UStG is what I am aiming for:
> 
>   Von den unter § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 fallenden Umsätzen sind steuerfrei:
>   […]
>   22. a) die Vorträge, Kurse und anderen Veranstaltungen
>   wissenschaftlicher oder belehrender Art, die […] von
>   Einrichtungen, die gemeinnützigen Zwecken […] dienen,
>   durchgeführt werden, wenn die Einnahmen überwiegend zur
>   Deckung der Kosten verwendet werden,

I know that one, I'm using it somewhere else.

However, one need to check if all of Debconf falls into that, or if
parts don't. Tax authorities don't necessarily consider one event
"treated all as one", see e.g. page 39, nr 206 of
http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/shoplink/06003006.htm

Sponsoring is sometimes considered to be "Wirtschaftlicher
Geschäftsbetrieb", see Sponsoringerlass, BMF-letter from 18.2.1998, 
IV B 2 - S 2144 - 40/98 - IV B 7 - S 0183 - 62/98

That is why I said "some more complexity". There is the possibility to
get a binding answer from tax authorities beforehand, and that could
be VAT-free, but that still keeps the point "more complex".



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140427085356.gv20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: [Debconf-team] Trusted Organisation status for DebConf15's legal entity

[Andreas Barth]

* martin f krafft (madd...@debconf.org) [140427 11:00]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth  [2014-04-27 10:53 +0200]:
> > However, one need to check if all of Debconf falls into that, or if
> > parts don't. Tax authorities don't necessarily consider one event
> > "treated all as one", see e.g. page 39, nr 206 of
> > http://www.bestellen.bayern.de/shoplink/06003006.htm
> 
> Yeah, I don't think it'll work as easily as I may have portrayed.
> 
> Does anyone know a Steuerberater (tax advisor) who would be able to
> assist in this for free, or a low fee?

According to regularation for tax advisors (Standesrecht) this won't
be legal. However there are advisors who are specialized on
pro-bono-organisations, so I would recommend checking with one of
them (I know people who work with one of the most experienced one in
Munich, so I could check if I could get a contact there, but that
won't work on a weekend).


However, that doesn't necessarily prevent the creation of the legal
association now. As said before even though I disagree with some parts
of the by-laws, as long as it's a throw-away for debconf and the
debconf-organisers are happy, please go ahead.

Clarifying taxes before money actually flows is important, but not
necessarily prior to start of setup of the legal umbrella. (Also the
international parts make that a bit more complex, one e.g. has to
check whether §50a EStG is applicable - I would assume not argueing
that we don't pay money but just replace travel costs, but also that
should get into the picture.)

Another important thing with tax authorities is simplicity: Keeping
things simple prevents them from asking too many question, which in
turn prevents them to give answers one doesn't like. So, if you want
to setup things next weekend, I would strongly recommend to restrict
it to Debconf, keep your by-laws (or better: reduce it to minimum
length, i.e. remove anything not strictly necessary there), and setup
a Debian Deutschland at a later occasion. I think the time-plan for
setting it up is still possible.



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140427092300.gw20...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Theo de Raadt On Firmware Activism

[Andreas Barth]

* Loïc Minier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041104 09:55]:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Thu, Nov 04, 2004:

> > Why should firmware go to non-free, it's not evaluated on the CPU
> > that runs Debian.
 
>  That was discussed intensively until last week in debian-legal@, I
>  don't think it's useful to start the debate again with no new elements.

Agreed. And the result of that discussion was that we don't agree.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Re: Theo de Raadt On Firmware Activism

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041104 13:40]:
> On 2004-11-04 10:55:03 + Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >Because the policy revisionists changed the DFSG to make it apply to
> >data as well.
 
> Marco d'Itri appears to prefer either breaking the social contract or 
> not including any non-program software in the distribution.

I would prefere if we could keep the heat level down. (Not particulary
meant to you, but to all who are participating here.)



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Re: Google ads on debian.org

[Andreas Barth]

* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041213 19:30]:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It's not clear to me that having ads would make them 'commercial'.  This
> > would be something that would have to be run by the appropriate people
> > at SPI.  I doubt tbm would have brought it up if it would cause a
> > problem for the non-profit status of SPI.

> If you seek to generate income with your website, then it's not a
> not-for-profit one anymore but a for-profit one and is actually
> commercial.  Several of our sponsors are universities which have
> strict profit/non-profit policies.  For sure, my university had
> to terminate providing a mirror once such advertisments occur.
> I'm pretty sure about a similar policy in Dresden where the mirror
> www.de.debian.org is located.

I personally don't see the issues so problematic as you do. But: A lot
of (valuable) project members disagree, and, frankly speaking, keeping
you (and some other people happy) is much more important for Debians
goals than to receive some money or not by google. So, in the end, I
think we should decline the offer, because Debian is about the people
and their freedom, and not about the money.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

[Andreas Barth]

* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050724 12:58]:
> Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005:
> 
> > How is Debian related to the "Debian Core Consortium"?  Why are they
> > using the name "Debian"?
> Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before
> crying about names. 
> 
> There isn't anything official yet about the Consortium.

If the quote
| A spokesperson for Xandros said, "Xandros is actively working with
| Progeny on the Debian Core Consortium."



is correct, than there is something official, as Xandors has confirmed
it.



Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

[Andreas Barth]

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050724 13:43]:
> Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No there is something like the debian core consortium:
> > http://www.golem.de/0507/39207.html [german]
> > Progeny, Linspire, credativ (Deutschland),
> > LinEx (Spanien), Sun Wah Linux, Xandors and other are
> > involved to build a debian based business solution.
> > Regards Nico
> 
> No, there is an *idea* for this, but the project doesn't have a name
> yet. If you think that's not true - please show me an official statement
> of the named companies using "Debian Core Consortium".


| A spokesperson for Xandros said, "Xandros is actively working with
| Progeny on the Debian Core Consortium."

If this statement is true, than Xandros has officially commited to that
(and as spokesperson, one should know that any public statement is an
official commitment of the relevant company). And, frankly speaking,
that statement is more than enough for us here to start caring about.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: "Debian" Core Consortium

[Andreas Barth]

* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050725 22:32]:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>Maybe it would be great to come up with something that can be used by
> >>everyone interested. I'm thinking along the lines granting a license to
> >>use "Debian derived" as part of the name for products / efforts to
> >>create products derived from Debian, so that "Debian derived trusted
> >>Gnu/Linux" or "Consortium for a Debian derived core" would be covered.
> >>OK, now it's time to admit that I'm not a marketing expert and the
> >>examples offered do suck, but maybe it's a good idea. After all, we do
> >>like derived distros to reference Debian...
> > This sounds like something reasonable to do in terms of a trademark
> > policy but there's a couple problems with it.  If 'Debian derived'
> > actually falls under trademark requirements at all (I'm not sure it
> > does) and, if it does, then people still need to ask Debian/SPI for an
> > official submark before using it.  Basically, that kind of a policy is
> > fine, but doesn't remove the need for Debian/SPI to protect its
> > trademarks.

> Well, my idea was that it might be nice to have some general license
> (similar in spirit but likely not as liberal as free software license)
> for a submark to offer something to people deriving Debian and not
> create too much burden.

Just that trademark law is even more braindamaged and would make it at
least quite difficult to make such a general license.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why isn't queue/new world-readable?

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050803 00:10]:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Hello Steve,
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:38:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:43:48PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> > > > Also, Based on another message I read (on this very list IIRC) Debian 
> > > > is 
> > > > used by the government as an example of the propper way to export open 
> > > > source cryptographic software. [...]
> 
> > > Er, please provide a reference; I've never heard anything of the sort, and
> > > google is no help.
> 
> > A similar claim was on this list two weeks ago: in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/07/msg00195.html
> > Philip Hands writes
> 
> > This is because the current export regulations from the USA
> > require all crypto software to be notified to the authorities.  It
> > seems that when a new package is uploaded, regardless of what it
> > might be, we inform them of the package name, and that it may now,
> > or in the future, contain crypto.
> 
> > This (admittedly silly) procedure has apparently been adopted by
> > them as the shining example of how to do it right.
 
> Ah, guess I missed that message, thanks.  Well, though the source is more
> credible, AFAICT this is still hearsay...  does anyone know where this
> assertion actually originated?

Bdale told that on the boat trip during Debconf to Phil and me (and
other peoples sitting around).



Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA

[Andreas Barth]

* Michael Meskes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050824 12:54]:
> > ...
> > anyone. As long as it is clear that they are an external (commercial or
> > non-commercial) entity, I would expect no problem to implictely or
> > explicitely granting many more groups derived rights to the trademark
> > "Debian". Only the wording "core" used in combination with the trademark
> > "Debian", implies to me a very specific relationship to the project.
 
> But the word "core" is not meant as in "core of Debian" but as in "core of 
> several distributions based on Debian".

I know that you didn't mean it as "core of Debian". But it's easy to
understand it that way for people not too involved in DCC.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What the DFSG really says about trademarks

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050830 13:08]:
> Bully for them. Conference trips that have been paid for from Debian
> UK funds:
> 
>  * Debconf 3 travel (Scott James Remnant, as he already mentioned)
>  * Dpkg conference (Scott again)
>  * GNOME foundation meeting, representing Debian (Matthew Garrett)
>  * Several DPL trips (Martin Michlmayr)
> 
> All of these reimbursements were explicitly authorised by the DPL (tbm
> for the first 3, Branden for the latter). In each case, the money
> would have come from SPI funds but it's easier / cheaper to use money
> already in the UK.

And the same has happened with other Debian money hold by other
organisations for Debian. And that's IMHO a feature.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use
> > > the mark.  Why should this selling association, which ignores
> > > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's
> > > development association gets referred for negotiations?
> > 
> > Because, quite simply, they are not a business, at least in the sense that 
> > was
> > meant at the above.
> 
> I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation...  When we claim to
> not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to
> say that I'd expect anything which does sell products or is commercial
> would be considered a business to us.

Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here
(Germany) a non-commercial institution can do "business", as long as the
"business" helps in reaching the institution's goals. And selling Debian
T-Shirts falls into that aspect IMHO. ("Business" because it doesn't
really always fall within the business laws.)


> > I mean, take LinuxTag for example, there where guys there at the debian 
> > booth
> > selling t-shirts and stuff, don't know the detail, but nobody bashed them 
> > for
> > doing business in debian name, and i believe as long as the money is not 
> > given
> > out to share-holders, but is for debian (either as plain donation, or 
> > expensed
> > for debian related stuff, like stock renewal and the ocassional yearly 
> > party),
> > then everything is fine and you are just silly in claiming the contrary.

> Either Debian's going to be a commercial entity or it's not.

Debian is not a commercial entity just because it _also_ sells T-Shirts
and other stuff.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [050907 15:02]:
> AIUI, that's been frowned upon in the US because actually selling
> things makes you liable for collecting/paying sales tax which is a huge
> nuisance. Giving stuff away and asking for a donation, meanwhile, doesn't.
> 
> Different countries handle that differently.

For example in Germany, sales taxes don't need to be payed if you make
less than ~16000 Euro revenues per year with selling stuff (it's a bit
more complex, but - well, that's basically why this is not an issue).

> For reference, Australia
> allows certain companies to call themselves "charities" for tax purposes;
> but they're restricted to very specific purposes, none of which cover
> "developing a free operating system to benefit humanity as a whole".

Within German law, Debian is even a chartiy, which goes nice for tax
purposes (however, being a charity doesn't help you with the sales tax
stuff at all here, but that doesn't matter because we're small enough in
financial terms). :)


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:15]:
> In general I believe the practice *has* been that we don't
> sell things.

Actually, I have never seen any Debian booth where we didn't sell
things. With exception of fairs where the fair didn't allow it.


> > It's long been the case that Debian sells CDs at European events. To the
> > best of my knowledge, until now there has never been any real complaints
> > over this sort of behaviour. It's hardly as if we've been hiding this -
> > see http://www.debian.org/events/2003/1008-linuxexpo-report for
> > instance. I'd argue that this isn't something that Debian as a whole has
> > an objection to, and that (as a result) the website should be changed.

> Alright, then let's change the website and let's put up a better
> explanation of our policies regarding selling things.  I'd rather that
> policy not be location-specific but it sounds like it'd have to be for
> what's currently happening to be accurately reflected.

To something like
"Debian doesn't sell CDs via the Internet. However, at some events
Debian sells CDs (and other stuff), depending if the local applicable
laws make that possible without too much ado."
?


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 16:32]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I don't know how the british rules are, but at least here
> > (Germany) a non-commercial institution can do "business", as long as the
> > "business" helps in reaching the institution's goals. [...]

> What is translating as "non-commercial institution" here?
> 
> I'd regard a German e.V. or French association a buts non lucratifs
> as capable of being commercial, like a UK charity can be commercial.

"usually" a non-commercial instituation is a tax-chariatable e.V., which
means the amount of commercial things they can do is quite limited.


Cheers,
Andi
- founding-member of 4 such organisations -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian UK

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 12:09]:
> On reflection, I think we should ensure that the wording makes it clear
> that one has to express an interest in membership in order to be considered
> a member.  I'll start a thread to that effect back on the debian-uk list.

I know a local organisation here where all people that are "default
members" can become member with expressing that interest or taking part
in the organisation (like voting), and the quorums are made so that it
doesn't matter how many members there are - i.e. you can just start a
vote at the "right place", and everyone who votes is member. (And same
for leaving the organization - their membership expires by itself.)


Of course, there are much more ways to do it right, and it's not my task
to decide which to take :)



Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Is volatile dead?

[Andreas Barth]

* Adrian von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051121 08:32]:
>  * I've not received an answer to my announcement on the d-v mailing list in 
> a week, and investigation of the last three messages in the list archive 
> (re: spamassassin and f-prot-installer) indicate that receiving no comments 
> is nothing unusual.

> So, is the Debian volatile archive officially dead?  Now I don't care much 
> about random .debian.net (== unofficial) services, but OTOH volatile is 
> mentioned in the release notes, so peolpe would expect it to work.

You mean, if there is a week where people are only available for
emergency services, an service is "officially dead"? Sorry, I disagree.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 16:12]:
> We do have a problem with this in Debian.  You can say `please report
> it', but to whom ?  Is there anyone who is able and willing to
> admonish (privately would probably be most helpful!) an unhelpful or
> obstructive maintainer ?

That has happened, and will happen again.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reducing my involvement in Debian

[Andreas Barth]

* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060116 12:38]:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > [0] Including assuming dictatorial power:
> > 
> > http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html
> > 
> > The definition of 'dictatorial' given here is worth noting, even
> > if you don't read the rest of it. quis custodiet ipsos custodes?=20
> 
> "The very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler
> above the law". Just to clear up any conflusion, as is documented in the
> Debian constitution any decision made by the DPL or any delegates
> (including the mailing list admins) may be overruled by a simple
> majority in a GR. I'm not quite sure how that could be considered "above
> the law".

Though of course some delegates of the DPL could influence who could
vote in that GR (not that I assume that the current ones would do that,
but this seems to be a flaw that the constitution doesn't regulate at
all how people can become and loose developer status).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LWN subscription

[Andreas Barth]

* Isaac Clerencia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 12:41]:
> On Friday 10 March 2006 08:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Has Debian still got that blanket LWN subscription for all developers?
> Yes, although I don't remember how to get it :)

It's documented in the developers reference.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Setting up i18n.debian.org?

[Andreas Barth]

* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060328 17:09]:
> Le Mar 28 Mars 2006 17:05, Margarita Manterola a écrit :
> > I think it would be great if Debian had this "service", since it
> > would allow a _LOT_ of people who want to help Debian but lack the
> > skills to participate and actually _help_.
> 
> seconded.

Someone who is willing to do the work? I probably could offer some
initial space on a server for i18n.d.n until it is ready to move to
i18n.d.o.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Andreas Barth]

* JC Helary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060406 16:14]:
> However true that technically is, it clearly does not contribute to  
> the well-being of non-maintainer contributors in the Project.

I agree to that statement - but that shouldn't make us replace the nice
term Debian Developer with a not-so-nice term. And, actually, it is not
a real show stopper. So, if someone has a good term, I'm all for using
that term - but until that, DD just works well (and of course, we should
keep the term DD anyways for the package maintainers, it's just a nice
term).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reforming the NM process

[Andreas Barth]

* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> >  sponsorship privileges away?
> 
> There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see.

There is - if they don't check, you could revoke their upload
privileges.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reforming the NM process

[Andreas Barth]

* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 14:41]:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]:
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> > > >  sponsorship privileges away?
> > > There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see.
> > There is - if they don't check, you could revoke their upload
> > privileges.
> 
> That would not be specific to sponsorship.

Yes. But why would you trust someone to do it better regarding upstream
packages?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reforming the NM process

[Andreas Barth]

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]:
> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> --
> 
> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr,
> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective
> advocates no to advocate too fast.

Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he
needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as
advocate anymore.

> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in
> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to
> advocate you, something is foul anyway.

Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :)


> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
> --
> 
> For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak
> about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure.
> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are
> added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become
> quite much work for the DAM.

The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally
consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting -
but well, one might disagree with that.


> Work done since finishing the first stage should be thoroughly
> checked. To get actually useful data for this, we could make it
> mandatory to wait 3 or 6 months between the first and the second stage.

Actually, there are (few) people right now who just go through NM in
almost no time at all - like for example Thiemo Seufert needed 6 days
for all the questions from his AM. I don't think that such people should
be forced to wait 3 months for the full account. (One might say
"normally, you need to wait for at least 3 months" - that leave space
for the exceptions.)



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reforming the NM process

[Andreas Barth]

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060416 23:08]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]:
> >> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> >> --
> >> 
> >> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
> >> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr,
> >> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective
> >> advocates no to advocate too fast.
> > Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he
> > needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as
> > advocate anymore.
> 
> It sounds like a good idea, but has many drawbacks:
>  * We have no clear guidelines for advocates. This should be improved,
>I'll probably work on that in the next few weeks.
>  * We have no process that allows us to take the right to advocate
>people from DDs. Should I alone decide that? The nm-committee?
>Someone else? Do we need to document it in public? Wouldn't that lead
>to endless flamewars like we've seen with the expulsion process?

Both of this are not "hard" reasons why not, but just tell why not now.
I agree on them, but - as you said, this should be worked on.

>  * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back?

Well, basically like always - if there is a *very* good reason to
believe it will work better in future, yes. But mostly, if one is
out, he is quite out (unless the ban is for a certain time, like "no
more advocations in the next half year").


>  * After some time people will ask why only some people are allowed to
>advocate, while others can't. All people involved are DDs, who are
>supposed to be trustworthy. Why should I trust someone to sponsor
>properly if I don't trust his advocation messages?

The second is of course a good question. Basically, if we notice someone
fails the guidelines (which don't exist right now, see above) in a
serious way more than once, one should really consider whether to trust
that someone enough for giving him basically root access on all machines
running Debian.

> >> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in
> >> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to
> >> advocate you, something is foul anyway.
> > Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :)
> 
> I know that the same two people who wanted to sponsor me would have
> sponsored you, so I don't see the problem, Andi :)

That was after I started IRC. As long as one doesn't IRC, it's hard to
get advocates. Afterwards, it's easy. But I think that even people who
don't IRC should get the chance to become DD.



> 
> >> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
> >> --
> >> 
> >> For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak
> >> about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure.
> >> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
> >> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
> >> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
> >> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are
> >> added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become
> >> quite much work for the DAM.
> > The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally
> > consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting -
> > but well, one might disagree with that.
 
> I think only "full" DDs should get voting rights (yes, this contradicts
> what aj proposed in his blog).

This is already settled by the constitution: voting rights are by
definition exactly with the DDs.

The question is just: When do we consider people to be DDs? This is not
really defined, and we could make the gates more open (which I would
prefer), but also close them even more. In the end, there is no correct
answer, but just different preferences. Both directions are not "wrong"
in a strictly technical sense.


> ... and for flames. Sorry, like I was writing in another mail in this
> thread: The appeal of clear rules is that people can't argue with
> them. That lower reduce the frustration level quite a bit.

I disagree with that. Exceptions are something that are no rules. And I
think we really need to be able to say "we make exceptions as we see
fit". This was always my approach in Debian and it has worked well.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: About terminology for stable/testing/unstable

[Andreas Barth]

* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060501 10:10]:
> However, when looking at various original documentation we have in the
> project about this, it appears that some more consistency could be
> achieved. "distribution" is sometimes used (as in
> http://www.debian.org/releases/) but so is "suite" (for instance in
> most code) and sometimes "version"

I mostly read "the stable distribution" as an abbreviation of "the
stable suite of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution". So, it depends a bit
where you are: If you're only having one suite of the distribution in
your hands (perhaps even phyiscally, like a DVD), wording sounds more
correct if you speak about the stable distribution. If you however have
all suites together (like in katie), the term suite seems to suite
better.

Your summary seems to be consistent with these ideas in my mind.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: summer of code: what's next?

[Andreas Barth]

* Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060502 13:30]:
> 
> [Baruch Even]
> > Mentors should comment and grade proposals on
> > http://code.google.com/soc/debian/open.html
> 
> Right.  I guess I should have a look then.  Just got 'Invalid user'
> when I had a peek now.

You need to be approved by Baruch (as well as I need that :).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian-based miniVDR violates GPL (FYI)

[Andreas Barth]

* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060523 12:23]:
> Do they distribute the binary version freely or is it that the binary

binary is free for download.

Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Donations

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060526 15:21]:
> Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > IIRC Debian UK guys have also some bank accounts. CCed Steve for that.
> 
> Steve is an officer of a trader called the Debian-UK Society.
> It is not a charity.  Please make donations to SPI directly.

Donna, please ignore MJ Ray on that. He is a know troll regarding Debian
UK.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Donations

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060526 15:21]:
> Steve is an officer of a trader called the Debian-UK Society.
> It is not a charity.  Please make donations to SPI directly.

What's that? Can you *please*  stop throwing shit on Debian UK? Debian
UK was etablished following the Debian procedures. If you dislike it,
you're open to start an GR. Otherwise, please just shut up - especially
when it comes speaking to external people who want to donate money to
us.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.

[Andreas Barth]

* Chris Waters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 04:22]:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:55:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:09:10PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > It doesn't matter!  The DPL has no authority in the matter!
> 
> > He seems to think he does.  At least, he has authority to stop abuse
> > of the mailing lists if he thinks it's happening.
> 
> I meant specifically the matter of SVN access.  Obviously the DPL has
> authority over the Debian mailing lists.
> 
> > Do you know for a fact that a majority of the team members
> > are likely to quit, or have threatened to quit, if AJ (or a GR) restores
> > Sven's commit access?
> 
> AJ (or a GR) cannot restore Sven's commit access.

A GR can definitly override any decision, and restore Sven's commit
access.

> I know nothing about the positions of the d-i team or Sven or AJ.  I'm
> simply saying that if AJ or the project tried to tell *me* who could
> have access to a repository under *my* control, I would tell them, in
> very specific terms, where to shove it and how fast to spin.  :)

If the repository is hold on a debian.org-machine, it is definitly bound
by the rules of our constitution. If you don't like it, don't use debian
ressources.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.

[Andreas Barth]

* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 07:56]:
> Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> > AIUI (please, correct me if I am wrong) the D-I repository is hosted on
> > svn.d.o, a machine belonging to the debian project. I don't see why the
> > DPL would have authority over the mailing lists (hosted on a debian
> > machine and maintained by the list admins) but not the svn repo (hosted
> > on a debian machine, maintained by the svn admins (alioth team?) and
> > access for that particular repo controlled by the project admins).
> 
> Maybe because the team is using the resource on their own and needs to
> organise itself.  If some external third party (e.g. the DPL) screws
> up and orders something, they are probably damaging the team.  As a
> result this could end up in the team giving up or moving their work to
> a resource they have full control over so that such an incident does
> not happen again.  Both would not be the results you had intended, I
> guess.

There are two different things:
- Is it helpful?
- Is it allowed?

I don't see why a GR cannot overrule the decisions of any team, or the
tech ctte (as long as it's a technical issue), and also the DPL could
redelegate the ongoing task to someone else. This is of course only the
"can it be done"-part of it.

Of course, in most cases, speaking with people is enough to resolve
issues. But our constitution gives rules how teams can be changed (i.e.
delegation for ongoing tasks), and how decisions can be overwritten
(though of course I'm happy that these rules are not used too often).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.

[Andreas Barth]

* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060621 12:08]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > A GR can definitly override any decision, and restore Sven's commit
> > access.
> 
> No. A GR can override any decision made by the DPL, a delegate or the 
> technical committee. A GR can not override a decision made by an 
> individual developer or a team of developers.
> 
> I guess you could argue that svn.debian.org is adminned by a delegate of 
> the DPL, and a GR could force them to restore Sven's commit access. But 
> the d-i team could then move their svn archive somewhere else and refuse 
> to provide Sven with commit access.

They might move, yes. However, for some teams it might be less easy,
especially if they use d.o-resources elsewhere. Also, a GR could
influence what appears on the web pages.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

release team additions

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

We are happy to announce the addition to the release team of
Adeodato Simó, Bill Allombert, Luk Claes and Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt as 
Release Assistants.

We'd like to thank them and all others who volunteered, especially for the 
excellent work done on the tasks we set during the selection process.


Cheers,
Andi
Debian Release Team
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cool stuff at EDOS - collaboration ideas

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

we (Enrico, Martin (tbm) and Andi (aba)) visited the EDOS workshop at the
Rencontres Mondiales du Logiciel Libre (RMLL) http://www.rmll.info/ on
Thursday and Friday. Besides giving talks about how QA and release
management work in Debian, and how easy it is to create Custom Debian
Distributions, we heard a good many talks about what has happened in the
EDOS project itself. Some funny things, some interesting and some
not-so-interesting things we were told.

One of the funny ones is the "Debian weather", which represents the
installability status of the packages in the form of the current weather
(i.e. which percentage packages are uninstallable):
http://brion.inria.fr/anla/health?bundle=U&architecture=i386
Some of the ideas we gathered about that was to combine that with RC bug
status, and/or to put it up as applet in desktop environments (or
perhaps also as something you can run at fortune time, or ...). Of
course, the current weather could also be included at the web page or
wherever. :)

Another nice thing was that they converted our normal dependencies
(which include conflicts, provides) to SAT, and put a normal SAT
resolver on it. One nice side effect of that was that one can measure
the "SAT temperature", which means: how hard is it to resolve that
formula. Most packages are pretty cool, but we have some hotspots.
Actually, it might be interesting to use the sorted list as input to
some other tasks (just one idea we had was co-installability testing on
piuparts) - but there's definitly more to come. Or perhaps also
sometimes later as hints for apt to use? It might be possible to add
value from that to the testing scripts, status checkers etc - but that's
not the first step of course.

Also, they had some engine for package comparison and search (where the
weather was one of the side spin-offs from it). This could help us to
ask more question about package aspects, and they are waiting for inputs
from us to have questions more in the way we like. The interface is at:
http://brion.inria.fr/anla/ (and there is a more detailed CLI - but that
currently generates a bit of load, and of course all of that is still
alpha state). An extended package search is on
http://ara.edos-project.org/

They also updated the debcheck package - now in the archive as
edos-debcheck. Probably we should consider to use that on the
qa.d.o-website.

The dependency check people also provided some code to check which
packages were co-installable in sarge and are no longer in etch. Please
expect some mail from me about the details soon. (Well, I'm waiting on
some mail from them, but they're apparently not in the office today. :)

Some other idea was an apt with integrated rollback functionality. Though
we were not so convinced how they did it (and, btw, they only did it for
apt-rpm), it gave us an idea to integrate apt with some VCS for etc (eg.
in order to role back configuration changes).

Another idea we made up on our own was to create a second Packages file
which could have "minor" information about packages - Bug status,
temperature, popcon data, ... Might be nice for playing around, and
we'll see how it's useful.

There was also a group presenting about distro testing stuff. We're not
as sure how far they are - but we'll try to give them some real life
task to resolve (which would be useful for the release as well :).


Ok, so much on what happened. The depedency people were very nice,
helpful and open to suggestions from us, and invited me (aba) to come to
Paris to continue discussion and integration. Perhaps someone else
should come also - we need to sort that out. They also have already
contact with Pierre (Madcoder). We definitly think there are good things
to come and help us, so we're enthusiastic about working together with
them.

We encourage you to take a look at their web site and projects, and send
useful ideas, suggestions and questions to the list. We will forward
them to the EDOS people in order to start a discussion:

weather: http://brion.inria.fr/anla/health?bundle=U&architecture=i386
package exploration: http://brion.inria.fr/anla/
package search: http://ara.edos-project.org/
distro testing: http://www.edos-project.org/qa/
main page: http://www.edos-project.org/xwiki/bin/Main/


Cheers,
Andi, Enrico, Martin
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

[Andreas Barth]

* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 10:26]:
> --- Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > No, it isn't labelled "sarge".
> 
> As I can see from the _pictures_ (magazine cover + DVD), it's labeled "Debian
> Sarge" very prominently.

Well, the print on the cover is not optimal, but I'm not as much
concerned as you are. It should be quite easy to get that fixed next
time (especially as German DDs are in contact with them anyways).

Actually, I'm a bit concerned about this thread. What happened:
- Some German magazine promotes extended Debian DVDs, and gave quite many
  DVDs to Debian for free
- The DVDs have in addition to the regular packages also (in a seperate
  location) backported packages
- There is actual no bug report about these DVD
- There is much effort involved in creating such a DVD; however, instead
  of being happy with the amount this magazine spend on Debian, people
  are unhappy because the word "Special" is not written on the DVD, but
  just in the headline, in the text etc.

Does that sound like a wrong thing only to me? I'm quite happy if we
identify what could work better next time. Something that makes every
thread nicer and more helpful is if people also say what worked well.
The DVD worked well. Handing out DVDs to Debian also. The headline also.
Just not the print on the DVDs itself, which was not meant bad and can
be fixed in future. And now, please let's get back to work on etch.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

[Andreas Barth]

* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 19:04]:
> > That is still false. People's erroneous beliefs do not entitle them
> > to anything.
> 
> This is not about entitlement. This is about Debian's failure to react to a
> misuse of its trademarks.

This rather sounds like a trollish remark to me. Who are you, and how do
you judge what is proper use of Debian's trademarks and what not?


Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

[Andreas Barth]

* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 23:28]:
> Companies like RHAT are defending vigurously their brand. It
> seems Debian has more lax approaches. Definitely, *their* lawyers are
> better than *yours*.

Perhaps Debian just has a different approach how to deal with other
people.

Actually, I think you told us how you would deal with it, and your
latest mails didn't had any further input, so I suggest that you leave
it to us what we actually do. Repeating the same content over and over
doesn't really help.



Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

[Andreas Barth]

* Radu-Cristian FOTESCU ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060718 09:38]:
> I'm the customer, being it a customer of a free product. If I'm a customer of
> Mercedes Benz, and I notice that a modified car is still labeled "Mercedes"
> (and *not* "Ssang Yong, powered by Mercedes engines", but simply "Mercedes"),
> I'm affected that Mercedes doesn't care about that. And I'd stop using/buying
> from Mercedes, as long as they don't care to protect their mark.

Do you think Mercedes would tell you anything except "Thank you for your
notice, we will follow up on it"? We did way more, but you keep on
heating up these lists.

And, what do you actually want? Do you want that we all write "you are
our new god, and you are totally right?"? Or what is your aim? As far as
I can see, you are now only creating unproductive heat.

So,
1. you delivered some informations, and, as some people might have
noticed, we already spoke with the vendor to make the CD label better
next time (i.e. we did some action to protect our policy);
2. all recent mails from your side are only a repetition of your
previous mails;
3. your recommended behaviour is well known by now - sue everybody;

Your first mails were definitly helpful. But now you insist in going on
and press and press and make things just insane, which is not helpful at
all anymore.


> For God's sake, it's labeled "Debian Sarge", dammit!

Cursing doesn't help, my son.



And really now: Let's get back and do something productive. Like fixing
RC-bugs for etch. Because there is one thing I definitly don't want to
see: That this magazine creates another DVD based on sarge for next
year's CeBiT - independend of how they title the DVD. They should base
it on etch.



Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060718 12:49]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Does that sound like a wrong thing only to me? I'm quite happy if we
> > identify what could work better next time.  [...]
> 
> As far as I can tell:
> 1. Label the outside of the DVD "Unofficial";

That has already been communicated to the Vendor (and is IMHO the by-far
most important issue).

> 2. Make the changes available online in an easy-to-download form;
> 3. Announce it so we know where to pass feedback.

I think that's just something the two DDs in question (Joerg and
Alexander) should take care better next time. Please note that any such
DVD production is a stressfull event, but - yes, one should try to do it
better next time.


> That seems to be about it.

Right. And so, the thread should be finished.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060731 22:18]:
> >From "libchk":
> 
> libX11.so.6 478 FAIL
> libX11.so.6 479 FAIL
> libX11.so.6 480 FAIL
> libX11.so.6 481 FAIL
> 
> These failures are common to all distributions using X.org 7.  Several
> symbols have moved from one library to another.

Would that failure also appear with LSB 1.3?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060801 16:53]:
> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:21 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Jeff Licquia]
> > > Most of the current tests pass.  Of those that don't, most are
> > > recognized deficiencies.  In sum, there are two potential issues
> > > with Debian and the LSB: a possible bug in cpio, and an issue with
> > > the libX11 ABI that is common to X.org distributions.
> > 
> > If I got this right, we could fix one issue with cpio and claim Debian
> > is compliant with LSB 3.1?
> 
> Sort of.  We have to release etch first.  I doubt people want to support
> July's etch for all time. :-)
> 
> But assuming the cpio problem gets fixed, it would seem that we will be
> able to certify etch once it's released.

That sounds really cool, thanks.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DebianTimes launched

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

today, we launched a new service DebianTimes, times.debian.net. Its
intend is to deliver larger and smaller "nice items" to developers and
interested users.

DebianTimes is available as html-page and rss-feed. It has been added to
PlanetDebian as well (except the syndicated weekly news). DebianTimes
is currently only available in english, but the infrastructure has been
set up with translation in mind (and we should add translation soon).

If you have any story/report/... you think could be on DebianTimes,
please feel free to contact the DebianTimes-team at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you like to become a regular
contributor, please subscribe to that list, and help us writing good
articles. If there are any other questions or issues, please feel free
to contact us.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DebianTimes launched

[Andreas Barth]

* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060803 22:02]:
> I'd prefer keeping PlanetDebian pure as a aggregator of personal blogs.

Hm, ok. I can see your point, but I disagree (but of course, I'm biased).

Anyways, if more DDs feel your way, I will remove DebianTimes. (DWN was
removed due to flooding planet, not for "it's not a personal blog, btw.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bit from the Stable Release Team

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

we added Dann Frazier to the Stable Release Team in order to reduce our
load with kernel updates. Welcome, Dann.

In other news, we added a new tracker page for packages waiting to be
accepted into proposed-updates:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/proposed-updates.html . Related to that is
that proposed-updates should now only contain updates that should be/are
part of the next stable release, so advanced debian users might want to
add that suite to their /etc/apt/sources.list; it is still not
recommended for everyone, and packages in proposed-updates are not yet
released.


Cheers,
Andi
Stable Release Team
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DebianTimes launched

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060803 22:39]:
> * Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060803 22:02]:
> > I'd prefer keeping PlanetDebian pure as a aggregator of personal blogs.
> 
> Hm, ok. I can see your point, but I disagree (but of course, I'm biased).
> 
> Anyways, if more DDs feel your way, I will remove DebianTimes. (DWN was
> removed due to flooding planet, not for "it's not a personal blog, btw.)

After some more of the feedback, I decided to remove it from
PlanetDebian. That same reason should IMHO also apply to removing the
DebConf Blog (and not adding one for DebConf 7) and permanently removing
DWN from PlanetDebian.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DebianTimes launched

[Andreas Barth]

* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060804 11:17]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Hm, ok. I can see your point, but I disagree (but of course, I'm biased).
> > > 
> > > Anyways, if more DDs feel your way, I will remove DebianTimes. (DWN was
> > > removed due to flooding planet, not for "it's not a personal blog, btw.)
> > 
> > After some more of the feedback, I decided to remove it from
> > PlanetDebian. That same reason should IMHO also apply to removing the
> > DebConf Blog (and not adding one for DebConf 7) and permanently removing
> > DWN from PlanetDebian.
> 
> As far as I know DWN is permanently removed.  If readers want to read
> it via a feed aggregator, they are invited to use one of the RSS feeds
> at http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/dwn.$(LANG).rdf
> 
> There's a comment in the Planet configuration file to prevent further
> addition.  I guess a similar comment should be made for Debian Times.

DWN was removed because it floods planet (because every spelling fix
changes the published date).

A comment about impersonal blogs has already been commited by me to the
config file after sending out the previous mail.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

policy for planet.debian.org

[Andreas Barth]

Hi Mako,

can you please define a policy whether non-personal blogs should be on
planet.debian.org or not?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DebianTimes launched

[Andreas Barth]

* Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060804 17:57]:
> #include 
> * Andreas Barth [Thu, Aug 03 2006, 09:33:03PM]:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > today, we launched a new service DebianTimes, times.debian.net. Its
> > intend is to deliver larger and smaller "nice items" to developers and
> > interested users.
> 
> Just a side note: I miss the usual big "go to the frontpage" link. The
> Logo in the top left corner opens points to www.d.o, I would expect the
> frontpage clink on this poistion.

Hm. I thought a link on the main debian page was better (as I consider
DebianTimes a debian service, even while running in the d.n-domain), but
if the general opinion is that the logo should bring you back to
DebianTimes, I can change that.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060804 18:15]:
> 
> [Jeff Licquia]
> > There is now.  Bug #381348, with the full scoop and a proposed fix.
> 
> And a fixed cpio was just uploaded.  Time to update policy?


Soon [tm]. :)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060731 22:18]:
> I have seen two questions asked about the LSB and Debian.  First:
> 
>  - Policy currently references LSB 1.3, while 3.1 is the current
> version.  What are the differences between the two?
> 
> There are two sets of changes.  First of all, the ABIs covered by LSB
> 1.3 have been updated to reflect their latest versions.  In particular,
> LSB 3.1 now approximately reflects the ABIs of glibc 2.3.4.

How about the init-scripts? Does LSB say anything about them, or is that
a rather optional component?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060807 15:12]:
> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:07 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > How about the init-scripts? Does LSB say anything about them, or is that
> > a rather optional component?
> 
> Yes, I had forgotten those; there were conventions in 1.3, but they have
> changed slightly since then.

So, anything we need are forced to change in our init scripts?

Or, if I read the standard correct, is that only for "conforming
applications", i.e. for applications that are deployed on Debian?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Andreas Barth]

* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
> From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:54 +0200
> 
> Good signature from EA7ED2A341954920 Frederik Schüler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> ,
> |   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> |  community (Social Contract #4);
> |   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
> |  firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; 
> |   3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
> |  bit out; for this reason, we will deliver firmware in udebs as
> |  long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and
> |  firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch,
> |  without further conditions. 
> `


> Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
> ,
> | The Debian Project resolves that:
> | 
> | (a) The inclusion in main of sourceless firmware and support in Debian
> | Installer is not a release blocker for the release of Etch.
> | 
> | (b) For the release of Etch, the Release Managers are given discretion
> | to waive RC issues in other cases where the letter of the Social
> | Contract is currently not being met, provided there is no regression
> | relative to the Sarge release and that waivers are done consistently
> | and with proper consideration of past resolutions (e.g. GDFL) and
> | work already done on other (comparable) packages.
> | 
> | (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall:
> |   i.   ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding
> |of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian
> |Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and
> |firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users;
> |   ii.  ensure that project resources are made available to
> |people working on addressing those issues;
> |   iii. keep the Debian community updated on progress achieved
> |in these areas.
> | 
> | (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall
> | reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the
> | project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online
> | consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and
> | the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at
> | DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the
> |     original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997.
> `

I'm seconding both of these proposals.


Cheers,
And5
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060919 17:57]:
> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>  developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>  up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>  changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>  number of very different proposals).

perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
now.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
> I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
>  archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
>  before us.

As there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this
GRs is essential for the release of etch, I would like to go on to vote
soon.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 22:57]:
> On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 11:00 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Is etch now LSB compliant?  Is it time to update policy to specify LSB
> > 3.1 instead of 1.3?
> 
> I won't comment on the policy decision except to say that I'd love to
> see that happen.
> 
> As for LSB compliance, etch i386 and amd64, at least, have been tested
> to be LSB compliant.  I'm currently in the process of re-running tests,
> which will include ia64 and powerpc.
> 
> I'm fairly sure that, should the policy be amended in this way, any
> issues that come up should be fairly easy to resolve at this point.

I'm quite sure as well, but I need a few hours to write some things up
first. :)

Jeff, please continue with your tests.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DWN

[Andreas Barth]

* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 12:15]:
> Since Joey has said he wants to spend less time on Debian has anyone
> else decided to take over/assist with DWN?

There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and
make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something
interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?

[Andreas Barth]

* Jason Spiro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 03:15]:
> What if we found some way to give away Debian CDs/DVDs to whoever wanted
> them for free through the mail, like Ubuntu does?

I would be happy enough if we could have enough CDs/DVDs to give away at
booth.

> Perhaps we could recoup the costs by somehow selling an IRC-, email-, or
> phone-based for-fee tech support service. Perhaps the service could be
> run partly or fully by volunteers. The service would be available in
> addition to our current free support offerings.

This is already done from companies, and I don't think that Debian
should turn into a company.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DWN

[Andreas Barth]

* Hubert Chan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 05:21]:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:18:20 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> > There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and
> > make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something
> > interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> I also appreciated the package summaries at the bottom of DWN.
> (e.g. these are new packages in the archive this week, these packages
> have been orphaned, etc).  Is there some other easy way to find that
> information?

It shouldn't be too hard to post that to DebianTimes automatically once
per week.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DWN

[Andreas Barth]

* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 23:49]:
> On 10/15/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061015 12:15]:
> >> Since Joey has said he wants to spend less time on Debian has anyone
> >> else decided to take over/assist with DWN?
> >
> >There has been the idea to just publish all items on DebianTimes, and
> >make a weekly summary of these items. If anyone has something
> >interessted to be published, please just send a mail with the article to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Seems like a good idea. I guess that would involve posting news items
> about discussions on the MLs as well, as that is something DWN does
> and Debian Times doesn't (yet).

Be welcome to write such news items.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:09]:
> Maybe, maybe not. What I've seen at Linux expos is that people don't
> care about free things - a lot of free CDs etc. given away at shows go
> straight in the bin. If people have to pay something for them (even
> something really cheap), then they're more likely to take an interest.

Depending on the event, we ask for money (unless someone is really
interessted). But even then, you need to have CDs/DVDs. :)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How could we give away Debian CDs/DVDs for free?

[Andreas Barth]

* gregor herrmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:17]:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:11:49 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 
> > * Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 11:09]:
> > > If people have to pay something for them (even
> > > something really cheap), then they're more likely to take an interest.
> > Depending on the event, we ask for money (unless someone is really
> 
> Out of curiosity: How much would/do the both of you charge for a CD?

"Depends" - we usually say: "We require a donation for the DVD" and
leave the amount to the person taking the DVD. If we see someone is
really interessted, we give it away for free as well - but most people
don't mind 50 Cents or 1 Euro.

It also depends a lot on the booth, where they're at the booth, how many
people are coming, ... On some events, giving away DVDs for free is not
a problem (or even recommended, in case we get lots of free DVDs from a
sponsor to hand them out), in other cases it is different. So, final
decision is always with the people at the booth.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DWN

[Andreas Barth]

* Andrew Donnellan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 12:49]:
> I guess that several things need to be done:
> 1) Publicise the Times a bit more; I would guess there are many more
> DWN subscribers than Times readers

Suggestions welcome.

> 2) Make the procedure for submissions a bit more clear: DWN is simply
> dwn(at)debian(dot)org; is DebianTimes simply the publicity list?

yes.

> 3) Possibly get some sort of team together (if there isn't one
> already) to work on reporting regularly. (If such team exists/is
> formed count me in :)

You're welcome. Such a team exists in parts, as Martin (zobel) and I are
currently responsible, but we definitly need more people. I'm happy to
give (more) people direct write access as soon as they're working
regularly on DebianTimes. If there is anything else you want, please
feel free to prod me directly. Anyone who is interessted in becoming
part of the team, please subscribe to debian-publicity and feel free to
propose articles and work on provided articles.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DWN

[Andreas Barth]

* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 14:30]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.10.16.1303 +0200]:
> > > 2) Make the procedure for submissions a bit more clear: DWN is simply
> > > dwn(at)debian(dot)org; is DebianTimes simply the publicity list?
> > 
> > yes.
> 
> ... and I thought debian-publicity was a general discussion/editing
> list for all kinds of publicity...

it is. DebianTimes isn't using that exclusively.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

[Andreas Barth]

* Jeff Licquia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061021 08:51]:
> The specific commit which touches msync.c (found in Linus's tree) is
> 204ec841fbea3e5138168edbc3a76d46747cc987.  It depends on several of the
> other patches by Peter Zijlstra that precede it.  The whole group is
> reflected in the patch in Fedora's 2.6.18 kernel called
> "linux-2.6-mm-tracking-dirty-pages.patch".  I have not specifically
> tested the patches, but as this is the only patch which touches the
> msync code in Fedora's package, it seems to be the likely culprit.
> 
> So, it would seem, Debian has a few options:
> 
>  - Apply the Fedora patch to Debian's kernels.
> 
>  - Assume that etch will ship with 2.6.19 or later.
> 
>  - Write a small patch to undo the 2.6.17 change which caused the
> problem, and apply it to Debian's kernels.

Thanks for that detailed report. I assume we need to either apply the
Fedora patch, or create another patch by our own - shipping wit 2.6.19
sounds like a non-option to me.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Installer funktioniert nicht

[Andreas Barth]

[I'll redirect to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Bitte bei Antworten auf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
beschränken. ]

* Alexander Mecklenbeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:43]:
> Ich habe gestern Abend versucht, meinen Sun Enterprise 220r Rechner mit 
> Debian Linux auszustatten, doch leider hat das nicht funktioniert ?
> 
> Habe das Sparc Paket "Netinstall" heruntergeladen, auf CD gebrannt und 
> dann eingelegt, stop+A gedrückt, dann boot cdrom eingegeben und er sagt 
> mir das er auf die CD nicht zugreifen kann ??? Haben Sie eine Idee ???
> 
> Weiß auch garnicht, ob ich die richtige emailadresse erwischt habe  ?

Normalerweise sollten Fragen entweder auf Englisch erfolgen (und dann
wäre debian-sparc, siehe http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc die
richtige Liste), oder auf der deutschsprachigen Mailingliste.

Welche Version des Installers? Was für eine CD-Rom-Laufwerk ist das
(physikalisch)?


Grüße,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Installer funktioniert nicht

[Andreas Barth]

Die Liste heißt debian-user-german, bitte bei den Antworten beachten.

Grüße,
Andi

* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:51]:
> [I'll redirect to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [ Bitte bei Antworten auf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> beschränken. ]
> 
> * Alexander Mecklenbeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061113 18:43]:
> > Ich habe gestern Abend versucht, meinen Sun Enterprise 220r Rechner mit 
> > Debian Linux auszustatten, doch leider hat das nicht funktioniert ?
> > 
> > Habe das Sparc Paket "Netinstall" heruntergeladen, auf CD gebrannt und 
> > dann eingelegt, stop+A gedrückt, dann boot cdrom eingegeben und er sagt 
> > mir das er auf die CD nicht zugreifen kann ??? Haben Sie eine Idee ???
> > 
> > Weiß auch garnicht, ob ich die richtige emailadresse erwischt habe  ?
> 
> Normalerweise sollten Fragen entweder auf Englisch erfolgen (und dann
> wäre debian-sparc, siehe http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc die
> richtige Liste), oder auf der deutschsprachigen Mailingliste.
> 
> Welche Version des Installers? Was für eine CD-Rom-Laufwerk ist das
> (physikalisch)?
> 
> 
> Grüße,
> Andi
> -- 
>   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian Weekly News - November 28th, 2006

[Andreas Barth]

* Baz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061219 01:52]:
> "Andreas Barth has published a release update regarding the upcoming release
> of Debian <http://distrowatch.com/debian> GNU/Linux 4.0. Although it does
> not provide any information about the probable release date of the much
> awaited Etch, it does hint at what many suspected was one of the reasons for
> the current delay - the go slow strike of some of those Debian developers
> who strongly objected to the Dunc-Tank experiment to fund the work of two
> release managers with generous salaries..."
> 
> Is this correct - that some Debian developers are consciously and
> deliberately slowing the release of "etch?"

What is true is that I didn't say that, didn't intend to, and it was
also not an release update. Journalismn at its best.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Change of the debian code-name base?

[Andreas Barth]

* Torsten Trautwein ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070526 16:07]:
> I'm a long time Debian GNU/Linux user - both as a desktop and server OS.
> I've never been a big friend of the code-names of Debian, so I wanted
> to ask if it was possible to change the naming resource from Toy Story
> to The Simpsons?

I doubt the current Release Managers would switch to the Simpsons.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another level of agression ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070527 20:56]:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Sven Luther wrote:
> >   17:55:11 < svenl> waldi: do you know who removed me from the kernel
> >   alioth team ?
> >   17:57:44 < waldi> nope
> > 
> > No answer yet, and :
> > 
> >   18:34:59 < sgran> I am not going to answer questions about who it was,
> >   that will need to be argued about on a different IRC channel
> >   18:49:33 < sgran> I have already /msg'ed the person responsible, and
> >   told them to let you know it was them
> >   18:49:47 < sgran> but they say they don't remember doing it
> 
> Both logs are related. Waldi removed you from the kernel team at the
> beginning of the month (9th May) together with two other persons:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'm rather shocked that waldi removed people from commit access without
telling them - and even worse, without being able to remember it about
14 days later.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another level of agression ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 11:18]:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:38:24AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > I can understand the latter.  However, maybe it was just a mistake and
> > waldi didn't want to remove Sven but accidently removed one line too much
> > or something?  He'll probably speak up and explain things.
> 
> I already said that I can't remember. I know there was something about
> dilinger and wli but not more.

In that case, why isn't svenl added back by you if we know now that you
removed him? It really seems to me you shouldn't have admin privileges
on the kernel svn if you cannot properly handle them.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another level of agression ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 12:14]:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:38:24AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > > I can understand the latter.  However, maybe it was just a mistake and
> > > waldi didn't want to remove Sven but accidently removed one line too much
> > > or something?  He'll probably speak up and explain things.
> > 
> > I already said that I can't remember. I know there was something about
> > dilinger and wli but not more.
> 
> Fine, so can you reactivate my access ?

It seems that waldi doesn't want to do it, and also not to give any
statement that he wanted to kick you out. I consider this a very bad
behaviour, at least. And not acceptable.

We had just an IRC-discussion (in German):
12:15 < Ganneff> waldi: wie siehts aus mit svenl wieder zum alioth
kernel zuzufügen nachdem er da wohl ungeplant flog?
12:15 < waldi> Ganneff: es hat eigentlich keiner lust sich mit ihm
abzugeben. ein teil ignoriert ihn komplett
12:15 < aba> waldi: *du* hast ihn entfernt. Dann bist Du auch fürs
aufräumen zuständig.
12:16 < Ganneff> waldi: dann schreib ihm entweder sowas als entscheidung
vom kernel team wenns die gibt oder füg ihn wieder zu. aber ignorieren
ist nix gut.
12:16 < aba> waldi: entweder sagst du offiziell, das du ihn draußen
haben willst. Oder du fügst ihn wieder hinzu.
12:17 < Ganneff> waldi: und es heisst svn zufügen, das muss nit
unbedingt wieder admin sein. solang er dran arbeiten kann - oder
alternativ halt weiss dass es nix wird weil $grund.
12:21 < Ganneff> waldi: so?
12:27 < Ganneff> waldi: im moment siehts eher so aus dass du deinen
access zu kernel (zumindest admin) verlieren solltest, nicht sven.
(and no answer from waldi up to now)


As you can see, there is no need for you to escalate it - other people
will take care of that. :)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another level of agression ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 12:28]:
> It seems that waldi doesn't want to do it, and also not to give any
> statement that he wanted to kick you out. I consider this a very bad
> behaviour, at least. And not acceptable.

After some more pressure on IRC, your commit access has been restored.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another level of agression ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070528 13:23]:
> [...]

Sven, this whole thread is about that your commit access to the kernel
svn repro was revoked without anyone telling you. What then happened is
that the alioth admins published that waldi revoked the access, waldi
refused to comment to it, and was finally beaten by Ganneff and me to
reenable your access. So, you see, two people jumped up to help you to
get your access back, and were successful.

I can understand that you are annoyed/angry at waldi now, but please
consider that some people in Debian did efforts to help you to have your
access restored. (And BTW, I still think that waldi needs to send a
public apology for removing your access - as far as I can see it, it
really seems to me waldi shouldn't have admin access because his
behaviour is not how any admin should behave. But please stop muddling
everything together. Debian as a project is definitly not responsible
for waldis bad behaviour - and there is no correlation between waldis
bad behaviour and anything else, waldi is behaving bad to almost all and
not only to you.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.

[Andreas Barth]

* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070529 13:58]:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Ok, but this was only the 'goute qui a fait deborder le vase', the
> > > bigger problem remains as a raw wound, for me, and for debian as a
> > 
> > The - what you call - bigger problem has been discussed enough.  More
> > mails won't change anything positively with regards to it and you.
> > You should accept this.
> 
> Then what will change it ?

Just leave Debian.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.

[Andreas Barth]

* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070529 18:17]:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:29:35AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Sven Luther dijo [Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:21:20PM +0200]:
> > > > without a reason. This is justice: the harm was undone, you have aquired
> > > > an additional level of protection, and no measures were taken against
> > > > your disruptive behaviour.
> > > 
> > > Ok, but this was only the 'goute qui a fait deborder le vase', the
> > > bigger problem remains as a raw wound, for me, and for debian as a
> > > whole. I ask you (you as DPL, you as Debian, you as individual DDs) to
> > > undo the harm done since over a year now too. 
> > 
> > I, as a DD, could not ask you to undo the harm, because I do not think
> > you can become a different person. You have personal conflicts with
> > too many people in Debian. I was, yes, against the expulsion - But I
> > also invite you to stop participating where you cannot get any social
> > interaction. Debian lists have been pretty calm in the last few
> > months, but you make a post or two, and we become -again- the
> > flamefest of the world.
> 
> Err, no, it is not 'i make a post or two', but 'some action by some
> random guy does again show again how much debian has hurt me, and i
> react to it'.

And then you cannot just stop when the mistake has been fixed. *That* is
the main reason for the issue.


Back a few months ago, I was between unsure and in favour of not
expulsing you. You made me change my opinion in the last 36 hours.



This is not something easy for me to say. But you convinced me that it
would be better for both you and Debian if our ways part. I still hope
that you realize that too, but if you don't, I'm seriously considering
to ask DAM and listmaster to make it happen.

I'm very very sad about this happening.



Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public request that action be taken at whoever abused their technical power to remove me from the kernel team at alioth.

[Andreas Barth]

* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070529 22:05]:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 08:26:20PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please limit the number of posts per day to this thread.
> 
> Lively discussion

Lively discussion and DoS is a different thing. You do DoS.


Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Social committee proposal

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070601 11:59]:
>  7. The initial Social Committee will consist of of five elected
> Developers.  The Project Secretary is requested to organise and
> hold an election, in a manner similar to that for Project Leader.
> 
>  8. The Committee shall be responsible for appointing new members,
> removing existing members, and varying its size, as and when it
> sees fit.

I think it would be better if the committee is re-elected from the
developers at large - perhaps half of their size every years for a two
years time (and doing the elections at the same time as the DPL)?


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Social committee proposal

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Tille ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070608 09:12]:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 
> >I think it would be better if the committee is re-elected from the
> >developers at large - perhaps half of their size
> 
> I see no chance to define half of their size precisely.  It immediately
> opens a lot of question.  One of these questions is "Which half?".
> So either re-electing all or nobody is an option.

I don't get the problem. We have two sets of people there in:
- people elected in even years
- people elected in uneven years


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Social committee proposal

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Tille ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070608 13:08]:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 
> >I don't get the problem. We have two sets of people there in:
> >- people elected in even years
> >- people elected in uneven years
> 
> Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues
> via mail.  I just hope that many people will join
> 
> https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html
> 
> which I registered for an open discussion about this topic.

Eh, why don't do it in the discussion about Debian governance?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: curl dependency problem in unstable

[Andreas Barth]

* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070625 18:35]:
> There's always tons of problems with packages in unstable not installing
> etc.  Unless you mean something else with `the unstable archive' I don't
> see how asking here about every apt-get install  failing will work
> out - We've got dozens of people in #debian asking that everyday.

In *this* case however we will end up with a few uninstallable packages
in testing for a few days - currently working on fixing that during the
next days. (In case people ask about such issues in testing.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070627 23:31]:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social 
> committee proposal]"):
> > AFAIR, the consensus was that:
> > - by default, every 2 years the project has to reapprove individually each
> >   member of the soc-ctte. This gives the project an opportunity to recall
> >   members who are judged as no more representative or whatever.
> >   Reapproving probably means having more ranking above NOTA than rankings
> >   below NOTA. Maybe we should make that ratio 66%.
> 
> I remember 1 year rather than 2 but it doesn't make much difference.

Actually, we had two different voting systems with different time
ranges:

Either "normal" voting with 2 years (though voting every year, but only
on half of the people), or approval voting every year. Basically, voting
every year is ok, but we want to avoid having too large changes
happening to the people to "keep the knowledgebase intact". (As with
approval voting, that goal is reached different, so we can vote every
year on everyone, and not only on half of the people.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Did debian-release become a discussion list ?

[Andreas Barth]

* Charles Plessy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070721 06:50]:
> Dear developpers,
> 
> I just realised that a lot of things happen on debian-release, however,
> its presentation page says "This list should not be considered a
> discussion list".
> 
> I am in the process of subscribing to lists of a high relevance to
> active developpers. Is debian-release one of them ?

Debian-release is not and should not be used as a discussion list, but
of course lots of vital information about the release process is passed
on there.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]