Re: open source or free software?
On 8/31/14, Werner Baumann wrote: > I don't feel the need to talk about "open soure" on depian-project at > the moment. But if you do, don't forget the origins. A good summary is > at http://oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/raymond2.html. It is > really worth reading from first hand what the intentions of the > Open-Source-campaign are. > > I especially like this bit: > "It seemed clear to us in retrospect that the term "free software" had > done our movement tremendous damage over the years. Part of this > stemmed from the well-known "free-speech/free-beer" ambiguity. Most of > it came from something worse--the strong association of the term "free > software" with hostility to intellectual property rights, communism, > and other ideas hardly likely to endear themselves to an MIS manager." :) That is funny. > And so I will stay with the communist term "free software". It seems to me the term "libre software" resonates reasonably unambiguously throughout 'the community'. Good luck getting the FSF to use that term though... there are many years of 'investment' in the term "free software" and it is embedded deeply in license terms, and documentation. -- 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/CAOsGNSQSPDdsv_JCPu9ethPXuDTHREkt=mutbwqytw_041f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/3/14, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Scott Kitterman , 2014-09-03, 07:59: >>We could have an on stage censor with a switch for the microphone. > > And broadcast delay. Better still, a button on everyone's seat in the audience, so everyone can play censor - that would be a hoot! Or perhaps a +1/-1 button, and it acts as a voting process, whilst the +1s are winning the microphone stays on :) This would of course remove all responsibility from the speaker, and any sanctions would have to be brought against all the listeners of the talk, since they are the censors, and therefore responsible. And then a third "COC violation" button, which causes the last 5 minutes of the talk to be immediately broadcast to a special "violations review" list (or live wireless bluetooth broadcast at the event in real time), which list/ "review channel" is of course public for anyone to sign up to - this is how the community must work of course - group decision making :) On the other hand, perhaps a rating system - each talk, presentation, interview etc, is rated as G, PG, R, AO, and in this way, listeners/ attendees can make informed decisions about the content they wish to view/ participate in? Cheers, Zenaan -- 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/caosgnst_48gekht2hvqmum4rs_nzslghbiwnhxjuv9q5gno...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On September 3, 2014 10:23:14 AM EDT, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>>Piotr Ożarowski writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling
>>process"):
>>> yeah, lets do censorship. I lived in a country with censorship¹, we
>>> didn't have people swearing and nobody dared to say something which
>>is
>>> not politically correct, at least in public. Grat times!
>>
>>Is it `censorship' that the DebConf CoC bans sexualised imagery in
>>slides ? My point being that the word `censorship' is just a way of
>>raising the political temperature. It doesn't add anything.
>>
>>And for the record, I'm not suggesting any of the extreme proposals
>>here and I think equating my email with them is offensive.
>
> I'm offended at the use of the CoC as a political hammer.
As are many. Emailing lists off of debian infrastructure have been
created and those who enjoy certain ... freedoms of expression ...
have migrated, at least partly.
> I've watched the entire video. There was nothing sexualized in what he says.
> I think you're doing a fine job of raising the temperature on your own.
>
> As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no idea if
> he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and we ought to be
> open to that.
>
> While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects people
> from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they disagree with
> or make then feel bad because they are being accused of bad behavior.
Well put.
Can we provide some sort of system (eg ratings) to absolve speakers by
way of implied or explicit informed consent?
On 9/4/14, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On September 3, 2014 12:52:44 PM EDT, Manoj Srivastava
> wrote:
>>On Wed, Sep 03 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, he spoke the truth as he knows it. I have no
>>> idea if he's right or wrong, but he was stating his perspective and
>>we
>>> ought to be open to that.
>>
>>> While he could have phrased it better, I don't think the CoC protects
>>> people from having to hear opinions relevant to the project that they
>>> disagree with or make then feel bad because they are being accused of
>>> bad behavior.
One woman's opinion is another mans offensive speech.
This is the fundamental problem, not with the COC per se, but with the
doors it opens up, and why I believe so many spoke and voted against
it.
>>Often the difference between expressing an opinion in an
>> acceptable manner and expressing it unacceptably is indeed how one
>> phrases it, so the devil lies in the details
And indeed, some people find forced policitical correcteness in speech
to be (sometimes) bland, lacking in honesty, catering to a cotton wool
society where every self-indulgent weakness of personality must be
pampered, and in general soul destroying.
But what to do? as those with genuine fear and/ or fragility shall be
affected and shall here and there complain, and some individuals would
genuinely have an intention to cause grief or harm, and some would
genuinely do so unwittingly.
>>Having said that, I have just rewatched the talk, and I
>> personally was not offended. I do think calling people bigots is rude,
>>and in a way attacks their expression of their closely held opinions --
>> which is exactly what people here seem to want to defend.
>>
>> People associated with the FSF or those who feel i sympathy with
>> them feel offended, I find it somewhat disappointing that we care so
>> little about people being offensive, given the progress we have made.
Is it ever ok to speak an opinion which others may find offensive?
(I don't think this ought be in dispute - how can you know for sure,
you can't.)
> If I believe someone has lied to me, I can't envision a way to say that that
> won't offend them.
And if true, they deserve to be offended in this way!
How about offensive facts? Is it always ok to speak facts or stats,
which some may find offensive?
> No matter how well or poorly he put his opinion, some people were
> going to have a case of butt hurt over it.
>
> Avoiding offence is a great goal, but sometimes (and I think this is one of
> those times), it isn't possible to avoid it without overly restraining free
> expression. In cases where free expression and avoiding offence are
> conflicting, free expression has to win out.
Sad! Now you're already talking about valid restraining
of free expression.
The conversation is already here! Look where we've come.
How about the concept of informed consent to "creative" expressions
of a nature which may offend some?
How hard would it be to simply prefix every talk with a rating,
such as is used in the film industry:
G - general, suitable for all ages
PG - parents guidance recommended
R - restricted, may offend some
AO - adults only, contains expressions which may be found offensive
The only caveat is that R and AO talks would need to be in rooms,
so general passers by
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Piotr Ożarowski writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process"):
>> Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness
>> "things" that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't
>> want to change it.
>
> Neil Gaiman writes:
>
> I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday
> which included the phrase `In these days of political correctness...'
> talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their
> culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, `That's not
> actually anything to do with `political correctness'. That's just
> treating other people with respect.'
>
> Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we
> replaced the phrase `politically correct' wherever we could with
> `treating other people with respect', and it made me smile.
>
> You should try it. It's peculiarly enlightening.
I enjoy blonde jokes. I'm blonde.
I enjoy female jokes, and male jokes.
My gender does not stop me from enjoying either.
I am caucasian, and yet I enjoy Wild Cherry - Play That Funky Music,
and Sgt. Slick - White Treble, Black Bass.
I am totally clueless as to whether I am officially racist,
bigotted, sexist or any or none of these; it's too complicated
and I don't give a flying firetruck!
But I have empathy for those who are distraught, distressed
or otherwise in need of some TLC. Our humanity demands
that we consider one another, when genuine needs are apparent.
To not do so is offensive to me.
So, informed consent probably needs more than simplistic
ratings.
Perhaps a specific listing of potentially objectionable anything;
let's have our informed consent cake and eat it too - let's live an
abundance of informed consent.
Warning, this talk/presentation contains communication or may
contain expressions including:
- sex
- rape
- gore
- pedophilia
- bestiality
- war
- racism
- sexism
- crude jokes
- jokes around minority bashing
- claims of FSF zealot's' bigotry
and of course, no need to limit ourselves to just this list.
May be have legs?
Zenaan
--
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/CAOsGNSSukdGzh1OnWy=zoqfa-svtdca23fhpwk47w20cmgj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process"):
>> What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on
>> enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem
>> to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further,
>> about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so
>> far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything
>> that's been said in this mailing list.
>
> It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted
> by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what
> that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message
> about this, on another forum.
This in fact is, in my extremely high opnion, a classic example
of the tyranny of the COC! Everyone in this thread has been SO
"PC", no one dares post the link, or even name the even so that
it might be searchable! And to top it off, walk on egg shells
because of assumptions that we might offend simply by
assuming Ian was "responding" to "the event".
S!!!
Ian, thank you so much for your honesty, and it's a breath of
fresh air! Thank you, genuinely!
Yet the example stands! Stands tall, like a proud and long COC!
We being to censor one another...
Mind the egg shells folks! They'll be cuttin' yer feet already!
> I hope that regardless of your opinions about the specific incident,
> you would support the ideas that:
>
> - If we have a CoC it should be enforced.
The COC starts to be swung in our faces.
Or rather, we start to swing it in our own faces!
> That includes taking action on justified complaints,
> and dismissing unjustified ones.
By the all-benevolent, ever benevolent, and "never-to-be-
challenged-as-benevolent-you-miserable-serfs" censors!
I vehemently oppose the premise! whilst I laud the goal!
Perhaps try "achieve the aims of the COC" rather than
"enforce the COC"??
It seems almost impossible for humans to not reinvent the
tyrannical "democractic" state!
It blows my effing mind, to be blunt.
> - It should be clear who is responsible for decisionmaking about CoC
>complaints. Complaints sent somewhere else should be passed to the
>decisionmakers (with the complainant's consent, of course).
Oohh yeah!! Bring on the censors!
We know where that leads, we've seen it just a couple
months ago on the d-community-offtopic list.
But hey, don't let me stop your descent.
Roads to hell and pavings of good intentions.
I've said it before, and I doubt there's any point my repeating
it these days; cotton wool knows no bounds these days.
> - CoC enforcement should not depend on whether the
>alleged violator is politically important.
Politicaly impotent then?
Yeah that's it! We must defend the politically impotent!
All minorities must be catered to, and every talk, every
presentation, nay, every off the record discussion, must
be pounded with censors, moderators, curators and vettors!
Don't hold back now.
> - Those responsible for CoC enforcement should have some
>examples to help them make their decisions.[1]
Don't worry about that.
The pace with which the problems of the tyranny of the
almighty COC has quickened is surprising even to me.
And, and I'm quite serious on this, without more people
seeing those problems of their own accord, an enlightened
approach is a waste of time, so yes I've just contradicted
myself.
Although I hold that external authority is the refuge of the
weak, PCness the refuge of the unimaginative, democracy
and enforcement of laws/statutes/COCs the refuge of the
lazy,
I also hold that the lessons of history and of so called
democratic society have not been learnt.
Not in the slightest.
So it is actually in all our interest, that we run the path
of laws (the COC), enforcement, nomination of enforcers,
and experience the full depth of that which follows, which
given the pace of our "IT industry" ought only take a few
short years.
Knock yourselves out, since it might truly result in some
enlightenment after the fact. I believe this.
> - CoC decisionmaking should not involve the DPL or the press team.
>(The press team should of course be involved to help with drafting,
>once the general substance of public statement has been decided on;
>and to help if a CoC dispute becomes a matter of public discourse.)
Fully agreed.
> - CoC decisionmaking regarding events at a conference should be done
>promptly and in person if possible - specifically, without needing
>to involve people who are far away and in the wrong timezone.
Definitely.
> - CoC decisionmakers should have guidelines helping them decide
>whether and when to take any public action, and what information
>(if any) to pass on to (which) future event organisers.[1]
Absolutely. Otherwise it's a mess of personality and personal
opinions, which was the point of the COC in the first place.
>
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 9/4/14, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process"):
>>> What case? Ian raised a bunch of general questions about how we plan on
>>> enforcing our CoC, with no reference to any specific incident. You seem
>>> to be convinced that this is about some specific incident and, further,
>>> about forcing some specific action about that specific incident, but so
>>> far as I can tell, this belief on your part is not based on anything
>>> that's been said in this mailing list.
>>
>> It would be disingenous of me to say that my message isn't prompted
>> by a specific incident. For obvious reasons I haven't explained what
>> that incident is. I'm assuming that Russ hasn't seen my other message
>> about this, on another forum.
>
> This in fact is, in my extremely high opnion, a classic example
> of the tyranny of the COC! Everyone in this thread has been SO
> "PC", no one dares post the link, or even name the even so that
That should have been "name the event".
But I replied for another reason - I personally have no idea what
the event is, how to find it, what it entails, why it was/is/could
possibly be considered as, offensive, and so *my* contribution
to this discussion is likely a percentage point below 100 due to
my lack of data.
But has that data been provided?
NO! I am not treated like an adult.
I am treated like an ignorant delicate !
But at least we are abiding the COC.
Do not ignore the COC - it swingeth proud.
--
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/CAOsGNSQQM7+CqNo4GbYK373ZyBNpGGJVzfKKqaR=7j_igdm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Piotr Ożarowski writes:
>> [Ian Jackson, 2014-09-03]
>>> Piotr Ożarowski writes ("Re: Code of Conduct violations handling
>>> process"):
>
Some people want(ed) to codify in CoC other political correctness
"things" that I don't agree with. I like our current CoC and I don't
want to change it.
>
>>> Neil Gaiman writes:
>> [...]
>
>> that's not what I think about political correctness, quite the opposite
>> actually, but if it makes you happy, so be it. Please stop CCing me,
>> though - I'm subscribing -project.
>
> This may be a case where people for whom English is not their first
> language, or who are otherwise not embedded in the political debates about
> the English term "political correctness," may not realize the land mines
> they're stepping on.
>
> At least in the United States, people who use the term "political
> correctness" in all seriousness as something they dislike and think is bad
> are generally people with whom you would not want to share a project and
> people who you would be best off avoiding. This viewpoint is correlated
> with racism, sexism, and other really anti-social behavior. Its most
> vocal public proponents, in the US political arena, are people who feel
> the major problem facing society is not that bigotry is tolerated in the
> public sphere but that other people dare to call them on their bigotry and
> imply it's unacceptable. Expect to see, for example, the KKK ranting
> about "political correctness."
Thank you. That is inciteful. Sorry, insightful indeed.
(May be not the best place for such a non pun, anyway ... egg shells
neverending, it feels sad.)
> However, the term got exported to the broader world, and I suspect that,
> outside our particular political hotbed, others are using it as a gentler
> sort of term for "getting too caught up on exact phrasings" or "taking
> offense too readily." Just be aware that is NOT what many people in the
> United States will take the term to mean. By using it, you are risking
> allying yourself with people you probably do not want to be associated
> with.
Thank you for that understanding. You are correct,
at least wrt Australia.
Regards
Zenaan
--
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/caosgnstfqvyt4jtpmbzrknklakq4hbjwlkkykqw0kx-5fe9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Patty Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >> I think more guidance for the teams involved would be helpful. The >> Debconf and Debian CoC statements are too difficult to amend. The DC >> and Debian teams should develop a process document which those >> responsible would use to guide their actions. > > The way this particular Code of Conduct Violation Complaint was handled was > entirely my fault. Antiharassement received the complaint, and I forwarded > it on to lea...@debian.org because the requested concessions were beyond > the > scope of the antiharassment team to handle (we do not issue blanket > statements on behalf of debian). I did not reply to Ian to let him know More facts trickle out. Thank you for stepping up to the plate. Any chance someone could crush an egg shell already and just post a link to the brouhaha? Or summarise the events? Are we that timid, that dominated by the almighty COC, that facts are no longer politically correct? I happen to think facts are a useful foundation to a conversation. > that > his complaint had been received and forwarded to the appropriate people in > the timely manner that I would expect for a complaint to antiharassment, > and > I accept full responsibility for that. I am very sorry. > > I was mistaken in thinking that the two followup conversations I had with > Ian indicating his complaint had been received (and forwarded on to > lea...@debian.org) were sufficient in keeping him informed of the > situation, > even if during one of the conversations it became clear that we did not all > agree on specifics of the situation. > > I will not make that mistake again. > > In the future, complaints sent to antiharassm...@debian.org should be > acknowledged by email as soon as possible, even if other parties are needed > for consultation in the matter. > > > Patty > > > -- > -- > > Patty Langasek > harmo...@dodds.net | harmo...@debian.org > > -- > > At times, you may end up far away from home; > you may not be sure of where you belong anymore. > But home is always there... because home is not a place. > It's wherever your passion takes you. > --- J. Michael Straczynski > > > -- > 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/20140903235756.gc17...@dodds.net -- 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/CAOsGNST=t4zsqthp4pksszvx--ahxbxul1vkn-piw5gv6z6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Code of Conduct violations handling process
On 9/4/14, Russ Allbery wrote: > Zenaan Harkness writes: > >> More facts trickle out. Thank you for stepping up to the plate. > >> Any chance someone could crush an egg shell already and just post a link >> to the brouhaha? Or summarise the events? > >> Are we that timid, that dominated by the almighty COC, that facts are no >> longer politically correct? > >> I happen to think facts are a useful foundation to a conversation. > > I don't think the conversation about the specific event that happened is a > useful conversation to have here, and I think it has a very high chance of > creating huge amounts of heat and smoke to no constructive effect. I > realize that the curiousity of bystanders has been piqued (and it would > have been nice if we'd been able to have a conversation without doing > that, although that's a lot to ask), but honestly I think it would be more > rubbernecking than any foundation for constructive debate. May be true, but intentional avoidance -causes- interest. A simple statement such as "An event occurred where some words were spoken and exception was taken, and incorrectly escalated to the DPL" would surely be adequate to downplay the event, head off rubbernecking, and provide a minimal non-fact for context of the conversation? (The suggested quote is based only on what has arisen in this thread, I cannot be bothered to go digging for such tripe myself.) -- 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/CAOsGNSRpugkHYS9MTBzCHTxXgzV7a3k2WvHh_+Ax5TqUs=h...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Once again, you rant multiple lists whilst hiding who you are. I am Zenaan Harkness. I have some (not all) strongly held views. As an aside, I shall use systemd and have tried a few times now, but have a technical issue or two with my setup when using systemd, which I need to find time to solve first - I intend to use systemd as default init regardless of the outcome of any GR that may or may not happen - I really do read and appreciate the technical superiority of systemd, even though I have since a year now been unable to find time to solve the issue stopping me from using it. I don't hide behind a "persona" which is clearly political in its agenda - and you hypocritically accuse others of being political... OH the irony! On 3/3/14, Natural Linux wrote: > "Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine" > "this is becoming a popular point of view." > " > "Cheers," > " Paul" > > Says the systemd camp, which uses politics in every fight it wages Notwithstanding, your email is not politics? No name? A persona "Natural Linux" - makes me wonder if you're into nude bushwalking or something. > (and it usually wins). Using the tech-ctte to change the OS in a > fundamental way itself is an abuse of power, in an improper venue Abuse of power claimed, by an anonymous _you_, and AFTER the fact. Come on, you need to try a little harder for a truly good troll. Don't get me wrong - you might have some important views and you might have some significant contributions to make to the future of Debian, but you are doing a sterlingly poor job of marketing these views you hold. It might be that you are simply not aware of how bad you are presenting yourself. Firstly you need to cool down. Then, you need to be honest - go public (I'm sure many of us guess who you are, but hey, we ought assume you have good intentions) as in, don't hide behind your personas (and you really ought to avoid attaching other's personas when you yourself are using one - we call that hypocrisy, and really bad marketing too). > created to decide disagreements among package maintainers, not > to go around everyone's backs and make sweeping changes to the > core of debian linux. I think Ian even pointed out that the > technical committe was the improper venue. There must be avenues for proposing changes to the Debian structures, if process is lacking, invent it and propose that first. If you truly hold the beliefs you are less that successfully promoting, then hold a steady course ... and good luck. > Also I read all the emails, everyone said that a GR with more than > 50 percent vote should be able to override said decision. > Then systemd won 4 votes to 4, and now the systemd camp opposes > anyone holding a general resolution and is trying to stall and > not allow such a thing to be called. A classic case of FUD, preying on the lack of knowledge of (some of) your readers to assert (by implication) bad intentions and actions which are not possible. Again, really bad form if you have some good points in there somewhere. > Pulling the ladder up after you've achived your improper victory > (through politics). Note from whom the systemd camp derives their > salarys and income. More of the same. > But yea, anyone who stands up against systemd is a troll, or dissapointing. Baseless reverse-psychology assertions. > Four people get to decide what operating system debian is. > Four. And we have to accept that for some reason. Not four. Eight! They don't get to decide. They DID decide! If you think a GR will get up, stop hiding behind your persona and propose it. I highly doubt such a GR would get the votes though - make Debian a black sheep of the GNU/Linux world? Unlikely that 50%+1 DDs would vote for that, NOTWITHSTANDING all the technical reasons for the (apparent) superiority of systemd... I shall refrain from calling you a troll. I assume you have strongly held, yet fundamentally good, intentions, and are simply failing dismally to communicate effectively at this point in time. So good luck, and if you want respect, you might try toning it down a bit, Zenaan -- 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/caosgnsrwj_e2-fe1zvochx8bwxmuwo3jjxvpjnzdmmk3a+0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: was Four people troll - now meandering off elsewhere - Systemd or the highway.
By emailing each of the above email mailing lists, it's not hard to guess who you are. It is sad. It is in your interests (for sanity, to stop your tsunami of loss of respect, etc) to simply stop. Take a holiday. Come back in a time (weeks, months) that provides for you to return to communicating like an adult. Also add in not top posting, not swearing on forums intended to be family-friendly, as well as treating others on the list with respect. That will all stand you in much better stead for your future. May you find peace, Zenaan On 3/4/14, Arnold Bird wrote: > So because systemd people won, now after 13 years I have to leave > and find another distro. > > This is BS. > The systemd people do this is every single distro they take over. > > It is their way or the highway. > > I absolutely hate you systemd people. > > --- jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote: > > From: Jerry Stuckle > To: debian-u...@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: was Four people troll - now meandering off elsewhere - > Corporate Speak > Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:59:04 -0500 > > On 3/3/2014 5:12 PM, Arnold Bird wrote: >> All bullshit. Notice how the systemd men always talk in corporate speak. >> Says volumes. Your supposed contracts can go to hell. >> > > So says the guy who can't even reply to the list properly (in multiple > instances)... > > > > Note that I am not necessarily a fan of systemd (I'm still not decided). > But I suggest you find another distro. > > Jerry -- 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/caosgnstsnh3mrtgs+5qvzdhxxsv9gsztefrfghnwb1djsqw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Note: I am not (yet) a developer and am therefore without franchise (voting rights) in the Debian community. On 3/20/14, Russ Allbery wrote: > While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to > vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest > in the context of codes of conduct. > > http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ I say it is on one hand better to grant the voting community time to read and research options for CoC, for the community (at least those with franchise - at the moment only debian developers) to debate that CoC, such that (entirely inadvertent, of course) mistakes and/or potential problems in our legislation (in this case Debian Policy) be avoided. On the other hand, such problems, and the consequences (quite possibly only to be seen some years into the future) might in fact be the ideal opportunity for members of the debian community (both those with and without franchise) to experience the consequences of ill thought out, or not properly explored/understood legislation. Good luck, Zenaan PS, some d-community-offtopic posts in addition: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/2014-March/000489.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-community-offtopic/2014-March/000491.html -- 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/caosgnsqbwahedvarypeblztmob7tmgapx4dtpo87xwnc8lr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 5/26/14, Russ Allbery wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: >> Which is more important, avoiding sudden upheavals where possible, >> or ensuring individual ctte members have breaks? > >> If the latter's more important, then it's better not to special case >> things now; if the former's more important, shouldn't whatever rule take >> that into account in case we end up in a similar situation in future? If >> so, then there's also no need for special casing now... > > I guess I see this as a false dichotomy. I agree that avoiding sudden > upheavals and rotating people through the committee are both important, > and I'm not sure why we can't just have both via some reasonable > transition plan that spreads out term end for the future. I think > 1 election per year might be worth avoiding, so that elections do not become tedious rigmarole. For yearly elections and four year terms: a quarter of the ctte (oldest serving) expired re seat re-election each year. For every-2-years elections and six year terms: a third of the ctte etc. If someone resigns, may be a) hold an election for just that seat, or b) whoever was next-in-line at the last election, to replace that person, but in either case only up until that seat would normally be up for re-election, that way 'normal' elections continue without the schedule getting messed up due to resignations. This is how Australian parliamentary elections work. If we want the opportunity to appoint new members regularly, rather than expire old members per se, we could just say that: "on July 1st, the two longest serving ctte members' term expires" to end up with (on average) four year terms... [...] > >> would work for avoiding sudden upheavals where possible (if everyone >> resigned simultaneously, you're still stuck, eg), but still supports >> reviewing or cycling through members, IMO. Any thoughts on that sort of >> approach? > > Yeah, that would achieve the same goals I had in mind and might be a > better idea. If the entire ctte were to resign, randomly assign those persons newly voted in to the various 'seats' which would ordinarily come up for election in their usual time period, similar to the 'one member resigns' case above' > I don't know if it makes sense to have two people's terms expire at the > same time or to have one person expire every six months. After thinking > about it for a bit, I think I'm leaning a bit towards the former since I > think it may help further with bringing a diverse set of people on board, > since it's psychologically easier to look farther afield in terms of > diversity of opinion when you're "balancing" that at the same time. But I > don't think I have a strong opinion. I suggest that stability of 'normal' elections is valuable from a "let's not burnout with excessive election admin overheadd" pov. > I'm not sure there's any entirely fair way to do this. Personally, I'm It does not need to be 'fair' from a time perspective. Of course the current seats exist from historical perspective. Decide on an 'ideal' pathway going forward, and if someones get a few extra years on the ctte, it does not matter at all. Act in the assumption that everyone is bringing their best to the table, and there can be no serious complaints. >> BTW, I've been using four years because it's a nice round number and >> reasonably short; did you think it was a good number, or were you just >> using it as an example too? Based on how long current folks have been on >> the ctte, I could see 8 years being plausible too, though anything more >> than that seems overly long to me. > > I had picked four-year terms because I think adding one member every six > months (or two members every year) is probably near the upper limit of > membership management that the TC can deal with and still get other things > done, and at the same time I think four years is near the upper limit for > meaningful term lengths. The Australian senate (our federal parliament) has 8 year terms. In the first instance they had half the senate expire in 4 years, so some of the first elected senators only got a 4 year term. Ever since, it's almost always half the senate rotating: at each 4-year election. I think less than 4 year terms is inadvisable. > Eight years is an eternity in free software. Software is different, but there is something comforting about having a longer-term body, the tech ctte, where its members have longer terms. I have always thought that the DPL is almost titular given the short term, but perhaps that's good too, for that role, in the way 'Debian' works. I suggest 6 year terms (or 8), with roughly half the seats expiring each half term, with the first half up for re-election once this decision making process concludes. The only suggestions I have for seat counts: a) choose an odd number of seats, to eliminate the personal frustrations which may arise at contentious votes - "the chair doesn't need to vote at all unless there's a tie, an
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 5/26/14, Russ Allbery wrote: > Michael Gilbert writes: >> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years, >>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then >>> have to leave the committee for at least one term. > >> 8 seems like it would be near ideal: turnover is dealt with only about >> once per year, it is close to the average of the existing members terms >> (7.385 years), and it's likely close the historical average (although I >> haven't calculated that, would be interesting for someone to research). > > I don't think this achieves the goal of rotating more project members > through the TC. If that be a worthy goal (I'm not commenting on this), then how about increasing the number of seats (maintaining an odd number of course)? -- 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/caosgnst_u213hfbk+2rm_xad3pghe1cp_1aerv_u_wh4hwi...@mail.gmail.com
Re: DFSG-free Project
MJ Ray clearly stated on -vote something that's been simmering in my mind for quite some time now. Could the Debian (or similar) project by entirely DFSG-free? We've had licensing 'debates' on the Debian logo's, as a result of the GFDL issue that came up last year. We have various documents that form the pseudo-legal/ social structure of debian - voting guidelines, the social contract and what not, and we have procedures for changing these and procedures for changing the procedures (all these ultimately being documents somewhere). So could all such documents be encumbered in only a DFSG-Free sense, or would, as MJR implies (see below, from -vote), simply self-destruct? On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 23:51, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-02-25 11:57:30 + Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It kind of feels intuitively attractive to me, to have an entirely > > DFSG-free project producing DFSG-free deliverables. > > Trying to apply the DFSG to the project doesn't seem to work, as I > don't know any definition of software that would include the actual > project acts. We could try to write DFSG-like DFPG, but I am not > clever enough to see how to get a viable project if it can't > discriminate against those who work on destroying it. Let's assuming we leave "acts" out of the discussion since we can't license acts, and talk from a documentation and software. Logos, policies and procedures can (should) be considered documentation, and at least licensed as such. All infrastructure (software - autobuilders and the like) would be licensed DFSG free to be considered part of the project. This seems to lead to a "top level" document (under DFSG license) describing the project, and the requirements for any piece of documentation, software (etc?) to be part of the project: - it must be licensed DFSG-free - it must be packaged according to Packaging Guidelines. - it must be packaged with a statement saying it is part of the project (and yet is only _actually_ a part of it if it meets all these "requirements". FTP Masters self-affiliate themselves with the project. This then leads me to these two points: 1) Clear(er) sovereignty from an individual point of view. 2) A possible reversal of (some of) the points of power (namely, back to individuals). So the questions become ones of what makes most sense in terms of drawing the lines in the sand - what should be responsibility of individuals, what of "committees", what of the "project leader". I guess any/ all these aspects could be made subject to voting. Of course that may conflict with sovereign individuals who wish to do things in their own way regardless of vote. So where does it make sense for individuals to work as a group? And then documentation on this would be useful to bring like minds together. Perhaps this is the real question from all of this: Is Debian's bureaucratic friction quotient optimal? cheers zen -- * Debian Enterprise: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Usage of Debian Structure Documentation, Social Contract etc
To my personal mind, why would anyone choose anything other than Debian or Fedora (or Slackware or Gentoo for the masochists)? Debian is where it's at - DEB packaging is "Borderline flawless": http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talk.html And if you must cow-tow to the RPM masses, pick the biggest community out there - I'm assuming that's RedHat/ Fedora? To my personal mind, the networking effect would surely outweigh just about any other reason. Unless you're a masochist of course... On the other hand if you have (potential) clients, and you wish to win their business, and they use a particular distro, then perhaps it's justified. If you want Debian through a "community of service providers", "kind of corporate but Free and Community first", then perhaps Bruce Perens' UserLinux subset of Debian is your cup o tea. But it's still Debian! And that's the whole point! Really, Debian makes more sense than anything else on the planet... I mean, where's the logic to use an alternative distribution or go through setting up the whole community again - it's said and done. And with Debian, your own private repository for a small, or large, perhaps temporary or long term, sub project spin off, is an absolute snap - again, the packaging rocks (just put your sources.list line before the standard debian lines. Local mirrors, "proxy" package caching mirrors, easy verification of package signatures (just coming online), incomparable dependency and other package attributes - I mean seriously, you can do it all! Why waste your time reinventing all those wheels - and then the rest of the organisation and support structure too! It just baffles me... Best regards and good luck though, Zenaan -- * Debian Enterprise: http://debian-enterprise.org/ * Homepage: http://soulsound.net/ * PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc * Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
Re: Usage of Debian Structure Documentation, Social Contract etc
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 23:01, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > To my personal mind, why would anyone choose anything other than Debian > or Fedora (or Slackware or Gentoo for the masochists)? > > Debian is where it's at - DEB packaging is "Borderline flawless": > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talk.html > > And if you must cow-tow to the RPM masses, pick the biggest community > out there - I'm assuming that's RedHat/ Fedora? "Biggest RPM community" is what I meant here - given that Debian is the largest community of all of them, it could have been confusing. Although, I don't know of any numbers to back that up... zen
Re: Cover texts, GFDL, and Debian logos
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 12:02, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:34:59AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > How is the Debian logo so different from "front cover texts"? > > Because it is not distributed in Debian 'main' ? Is this a valid response? Does DFSG mean "what goes in main"? > Because I can not think of any occurence where it would hurt > to just replace it with another logo? So our definition of whether something is "Free enough" depends on how much it "hurts" to replace (like, we have Gnumeric now, so it doesn't hurt to replace MS Excel, so lets distribute that)? Why should our logo not be Free? Why should others not be able to distribute our logo? (For example, it would be nice to have a "local-mirror" package which sets up a nice replica (perhaps excluding mailing lists) of debian.org.) > Because it is a god damn logo? Hmm... your analysis of the fact it's a logo is correct at least. :) Why shouldn't my 7 year old son be able to modify the Debian logo and show his version to his school class, or sell it to somone? --- It seems perhaps my question needs to be phrased like this: Is a logo in any way similar to front cover texts? > > Why is documentation not different from software? > > Why _is_ it different then software? Why _is_ the logo different from software? Perhaps you say it's not; if it is the same then refer to my question above "Why should our logo not be free?". > I tried to discuss this at the LDP mailing list before, but > I got no satisfying answers. Why do some documentation authors who > write their documentation about and with Free Software think that > _their_ work is so much better, sacred, whatever, than the software they > use? I would really be glad to see one good answer to this... If you are referring to non-free body-text of technical documentation, I can only agree with you. > > What about philosophical documentation? > > Yeah, why is it different? So should the GPL preamble be modifiable? > > What about our social contract, our developer guidelines, etc? > > - Are they free software? > > - Are they free documentation? > > - Are they free for others to modify and distribute? > > - And are they distributed in Debian "main"? > > These are the only questions I found mildly interesting. > Go and check it. They are "Free" it seems. Are there other parts of Debian that are non-free? > And what has this to do with -devel? Go to -legal, -doc or -project. Sorry. > [Sorry for any offenses, in a bad mood today] :) none taken.
Re: Debian logos
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 15:41, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:18:38PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Why should our logo not be Free?
>
> No reason. I think we've actually tried to do this before now and hit
> some snag or other, and just not cared enough to press the issue
> further. I can't remember what it was last time, though. One
> possibility: who owns the *copyright* on the damn thing anyway? I know
> the trademark is with SPI.
>
> We'll have to deal with it sooner or later - but I've got half a dozen
> more important things I need to do first. So the question really is,
> if you care about this, why haven't you been pursuing it?
And my email was what?
Anyway, until I'm a DD the best I can do is propose a proposal anyway,
and hope someone takes it up.
I hereby propose, for some DD propose:
---
The Debian logo{, and all other non-free parts of the Debian website
listed here, if there are any} are licensed according to the GNU GPL
{LGPL|X|?} license.
---
This would allow a .deb of the site, to easily allow local mirrors to be
readily set up (for example).
Sorry if that proposed proposal is not in its ideal form. It's the best
I could do given my experience.
BTW, thanks,
Zenaan
Re: Debian logos
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 17:19, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > The Debian logo{, and all other non-free parts of the Debian website
> > listed here, if there are any} are licensed according to the GNU GPL
> > {LGPL|X|?} license.
>
> This isn't really necessary. All that is necessary is that any
> additional work placed on debian.org be released under a DFSG Free
> license, and that the webmasters refrain from placing anything there
> that is not.
>
> It doesn't matter if the work is licensed under MIT/X11, BSD 3-clause,
> or any other non-controvercial DFSG Free license.
Can you modify the proposal so it adds a clause to debian policy?
thanks
zenaan
Re: GNU Hurd and Linux
On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 08:47, James Thayer wrote: > Once GNU Hurd is ready for production use, will you still support Linux > versions of Debian, or will GNU Hurd be the only kernel Debian supports? > That is, will you support both? Asking such a question implies that you don't understand the Debian project: It is a project of free software, *for it's users*. Now, a significant influence, from a user perspective, is the developers themselves. I assume it would be a _long_ time before Debian comes anywhere near discontinuing Linux kernel support. The mind boggles... :) zen
