Re: Proposal: Init Diversity
Hi, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than > systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work > with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work > exclusively with systemd and no support for running without > systemd is available. > > Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to > work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not > provide, and/or will not accept, an init script. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhnHVzDbtdH7ktKj4SBLY3qgmEeYFAl3V0u8ACgkQSBLY3qgm > EeaOyA/8Cda8C+28KkOyby51V6vdThxuoK15qM/T6kBDwpvSHXxirlfeAXX+kBO9 > u6ktSDgbtzWzwTdbFWET+dc7LLhERMiJlTRUx8zfUmT0U9pFtxveF/xUsQscXyDK > wKOJh4jC+9Dl9HhK2B0C8JIhRSFhZq4iB9OaSUXeaBepZCyjk8X/M890Zone4P0Q > Dfs8vpEPn06QdknUWjYaIWd/5TLrny5GP26e8p7MdGkEf5DGAvsOQmUZn5mni/g2 > Y2KRmZWL1+UnGpkTjCYXyQOS2+X3hmoUO/yMfcKDTdEebV5Q80Z2JTC1vQChGQ5k > aOQaB4H88EqzZ5QWECrw/309TSqmzSKBExwoFHsVZ12F9kOE0TxWIJT52NwtwJzh > fM9AJCXVcKX0Y9Pt6O2QmzbxhWbmL0hp9dnYL0o6n2/4hu04+PiMTNCOMeZrxBVN > gQgpC6hBoQPQoMHrmYITSqA7jrPCWzaPaMFSfk1aITwYtdSKnjE70P5z0i0MZL31 > JMLAabUpAajU6jLxGA52svaSBYm67I4kka10MWuyrOoPqMSxRipF+ir1U8H0M/80 > 9wRjXiraw5j2/VrqBK2W/n43DvlZB0y3/XCgtXvkyhG+fE65NOaH/UKrn6covcZW > DB3NY8zifq2GzYlGDU5ZC5FLm2JfWzkWqmtz/CHUXWQqzA3F1Ro= > =p2r/ > -END PGP SIGNATURE- I second this proposal (and all future variants that contain nothing but grammar/wording changes, i.e. without changes of the meaning). I'm really happy that Buster ships with 5 or 6 different init systems (I'm using three of them) and we should continue that road. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hi,
Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
>
> Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or
> (co-)sign any open letter.
> ---8<---8<---8<---
Seconded.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Hi Timo, Timo Weingärtner wrote: > I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot: Thanks a lot for this! > ---8<---8<---8<--- > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. > The text of this statement is given below. > > Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the > free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU > operating system and Emacs. > > Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the > FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched > this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software > activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of > this community is attacked. > > FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, > unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We > urge > the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly > understand the meaning of his words and actions. > > Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many > people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and > pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising > people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments > vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel > is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be > interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, > he is not looking to put things diplomatically. > > Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over > are > not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, > he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and > supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his > right to freedom of thought and speech. > > To the FSF: > > Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the > momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions > carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future > of > the software industry. > > To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable > arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a > public figure: > > You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially > not > via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted > debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman. > ---8<---8<---8<--- Seconded. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2015/vote_002
Please either do not use the word combination "fencepost bug" at all
or explain its meaning.
As far as I could find out it refers to a political joke (!) in the
USA comparing a "fencepost turtle" to e.g. George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin. I don't think such a term is suitable for being used in a
Debian GR.
(In case I'm wrong with my interpretation of that term, it proves my
point even more: Please either don't use it or explain it because the
term is obviously unclear.)
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure
Hi, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 10.26:18 Axel Beckert a écrit : > > Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2015/vote_002 > > > > Please either do not use the word combination "fencepost bug" at all > > or explain its meaning. > > These words are in the original GR proposal [0], so this would need to > be amended for clarity. *sigh* > I understand this "fencepost bug" to refer to the fencepost error [1], > quoting Wikipedia: > > > A fencepost error (occasionally called a telegraph pole or lamp-post > > error) is a specific type of off-by-one error. [...] > Is it clearer, Yes. > and enough for you, I would have preferred if "off-by-one" would have been used instead of "fencepost" as in the subject of the original GR proposal. That term is later missing in the announcement by Kurt as well as on https://www.debian.org/vote/2015/vote_002 "off-by-one" is very common, self-descriptive and well-known even among non-native speakers. "fencepost" is not. At least I haven't heard of that term in the 20 years of my CS career, nor does it show up with "translate" nor does dict.leo.org know about it. (The latter just pointed me to the political jokes. And that seemed to fit: Sounded like the TC is the turtle on the fencepost.) Well, I'm at least glad, that nobody intended to refer to political jokes in a Debian GR. > or would you like to propose a GR amendment? As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice for the voter. In that case, the damage is already done and cannot be undone. This IMHO only makes sense if I'd propose different semantics. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure
Hi Didier, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit : > > I would have preferred if "off-by-one" would have been used instead of > > "fencepost" as in the subject of the original GR proposal. That term > > is later missing in the announcement by Kurt as well as on > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2015/vote_002 > > > > "off-by-one" is very common, self-descriptive and well-known even > > among non-native speakers. "fencepost" is not. (…) > > > > > or would you like to propose a GR amendment? > > > > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice > > for the voter. In that case, the damage is already done and cannot be > > undone. This IMHO only makes sense if I'd propose different > > semantics. > > The GR proposer can accept formal wording changes directly on his > amendment proposal (§A.1.5). Ah, I wasn't aware of this. > I think the change would clarify the GR for more voters than only you, > so I'm hereby asking Andreas whether he'd accept a wording change on his > GR proposal as follows (%s/fencepost/off-by-one/g), under §A.1.5: Thanks! Much appreciated! Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Re: more GRs to come (Re: Current GRs clarification)
Hi,
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 11:06:03PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
> Roeckx wrote:
> > GR about declassifying debian-private
> > =
> >
> > There are 2 options on the ballot:
> > - Choice 1: Allow declassifying parts of debian-private
> > - Choice 2: Further Discussion
> >
> > If the first option wins, the GR of 2005 is repealed and replaced
> > by this GR. If the second option wins, nothing changes and the GR
> > of 2005 will stay in effect.
>
> I expressed my surprise about a missing third option ("depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying
> debian-private") on #debian-private and have learned there that this
> seems to have been an oversight / others agree that there should have
> been this third option.
>
> So, I hereby announce that I'll propose another GR to "depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying debian-private"
> if *this* GR turns out to result in "further discussion".
Seconded.
> (Because I think if choice 1 does *not* win, the project doesnt really
> want further discussion but rather this idea to be burried for good.)
Exactly.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`-| 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
