Re: Another proposal
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> I don't like the plethora of proposals that come up on -vote these days,
> but Loïc's proposed GR doesn't look acceptable to me.
I'd like to offer an amendment to this proposal.
Changes:
* Make it clear that this is a strongly neutral position ("neither
endorse nor oppose").
--- snip here ---
== Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader ==
The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian
- Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr
+ Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor oppose any projects Mr
Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian.
--- snip here ---
I also would suggest cleaning up the wording (whether or not you accept
the above change):
--- snip here ---
The Debian project reaffirms its support of Anthony Towns as the
Debian project leader. However, it neither endorses nor supports
any projects that Mr Towns may lead or participate in outside
Debian.
--- snip here ---
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Another proposal
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:21:08AM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Le samedi 30 septembre 2006 à 20:53 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit : > > --- snip here --- > > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > > - Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > > + Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor oppose any projects Mr > > Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian. > > --- snip here --- > > "We don't oppose this or that" doesn't seem like a really useful > statement to make, so I don't like this one much. OK. I suggested it because your wording makes it sound like a roundabout form of opposition to the dunc-tank project (IMO). I don't care enough to bury us under even more GRs, though. Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
The question of whether we should do this at all aside, I'd like to discuss the issue of what to call the new second-class packagers. Traditionally, members of Debian have been called "Debian Developers". However, colloquially we are also often referred to as "Debian packagers" or "Debian maintainers". Furthermore, the word "developer" is used interchangably with "maintainer" in the broader community. I hope I'm not the only person who sees a huge potential for confusion if we create a new class of contributors called "Debian Maintainers"! :) I think this proposal should be amended to use a name that is not guaranteed to cause instant confusion among everyone who isn't a Debian expert. Of course, no name can be guaranteed to avoid confusion, but it would be nice to avoid the obvious landmines. Sadly, I'm having trouble coming up with a nice, catchy name that would avoid confusion. Something like "Debian Outside Contributor" is clear enough, but it's more awkward and sounds kind of negative to my ear. Does anyone have a better suggestion? Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about DPL election results
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote: > > fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss: > > > But there is no such number. So my question is: who did not meet > > > quorum? How can I see this from the tally table? > > > > You have to look at (X,5) - (5,X), which gives you: > How this? Do you have any references? I do not find such a > rule, neither in current constitution nor in the current voting > amendment draft. From the section of the constitution quoted earlier, the quorum is the number of people who must prefer an option to the default option. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic| |design flaw. It has a tendency to bend at the knees.| | -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_ | \- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org /
Re: question about DPL election results
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:29:15AM -0500, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was > heard to say: > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote: > > > fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss: > > > > But there is no such number. So my question is: who did not meet > > > > quorum? How can I see this from the tally table? > > > > > > You have to look at (X,5) - (5,X), which gives you: > > How this? Do you have any references? I do not find such a > > rule, neither in current constitution nor in the current voting > > amendment draft. > > From the section of the constitution quoted earlier, the quorum is > the number of people who must prefer an option to the default option. ...of course, this only applies to the winner, but presumably the scripts did the calculation for everyone and ignored the results for all the non-winning options. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Construction.| \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) /
Re: question about DPL election results
Right, my brain seems to be switched off this morning. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic| |design flaw. It has a tendency to bend at the knees.| | -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_ | \-- A duck! -- http://www.python.org -/
Re: [OT] Re: prize dept
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:10:32AM +, Jonathan Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Forgot to include the list ... > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:48:01AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:27:24PM -0400, Christine Stockdale wrote: > > > So, where's the prize? > > > > Does anyone know what's going on? This is the third on this list. > > Is someone running a scam with our name on it? Is it fallout from > > a new worm? > > I strongly believe these emails (and also those purporting to be from > very, /very/ new Windows users, e.g. "My XP says I need driver? Where > from?") to be email gathering ploys to catch addresses from > /definately/ live accounts. I've wondered that, but this latest one (I haven't checked the others) has a From: address which appears at a quick glance to be a user of a legitimate Canadian ISP. (see www.sympatico.ca) Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org /
Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5
Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this email? Daniel -- /-------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Voodoo Programming: Things programmers do | | that they know shouldn't work but they try | | anyway, and which sometimes actually work, | | such as recompiling everything. | \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-free and users?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package > with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help > people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethical action when > someone, for example, will request sources from me. Suppose you package foo-nonfree, a package whose source code is not available. Some time later, a user requests the sources from you. You reply, "I'm sorry, I don't have the source code and so I can't give it to you." How is this worse than your proposed response, when a user requests a package for foo-nonfree, of "I'm sorry, I don't have the program and so I can't give it to you."? (leaving aside the fact that source code for most of non-free is available) Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | I haven't lost my mind, | | I know exactly where I left it. | \- Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org -- Because. /
Re: Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it. On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > >further cause for deliberation. > > > I wish to propose the following amendment: > > That point 2. above be changed to read: > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the >Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of >the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without >further cause for deliberation. > > Rationale: > > > A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us > > ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that > > maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program > > components of Debian vis ? vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern. > > While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge, > without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not > release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best > to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect > rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although > on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but > it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may > result in an inferior product. > > I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by > September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just > in case. > > Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you > accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for > this amendment to the proposal. -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "We've got nothing to fear but the stuff that we're | | afraid of!" -- Fluble | \--- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
Suggest "and" before the "actually" (comma-separated lists usually say "A, B, C, and D"). I guess it isn't there because of "as well as", but I'd put it there anyway. > In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release > currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release, > and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment > to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned - > even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with the new > Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to security releases > and point releases as well. Looks ok, and it's going to go poof in a finite amount of time anyway so I didn't look to closely at it. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Voodoo Programming: Things programmers do | | that they know shouldn't work but they try | | anyway, and which sometimes actually work, | | such as recompiling everything. | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Sun, 2 May 2004 14:59:11 -0400, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Meeting our commitments as described in the Social Contact is an > >> ongoing process. Since we have recently changed these commitments, > >> we need an interval of time before we can approach compliance. > > > This last sentence shouldn't be in the present tense, since it > > won't always be true :) > > > I suggest: > > > When we change these commitments, there will be an interval of > > time before we can approach compliance. > > Umm. > Whenever we change these commitments, we may need an interval of > time before we can approach compliance. Yes, that wording is better. > >> There is precedent for a gap between ratifying a change to the > >> foundation documents of the Project and implementing dictates of > >> that document; when the Project first accepted the Social Contract > >> and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, there was an interval > >> before we came into compliance with those then-new documents. > > > s/those/these/, maybe. (honestly, I don't know why I feel that > > should change) > > Umm, no. This is a specific precedent setting example, > so those is correct here, I think. Okay. > >> We affirm that whenever a change to the Social Contract, or the > >> Constitution, takes place, the activities required to provide > >> ongoing and proactive support for the Debian user community shall > >> continue. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, > >> providing security updates for previously-released versions of > >> Debian, providing point-release updates to previously-released > >> versions of Debian, preparing for the next (compliant) release of > >> Debian, actually releasing the current non-compliant version of > >> Debian if such a release is imminent (as well as any further > >> updates to that version of Debian), as well as providing all the > >> Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists. > > > Suggest "and" before the "actually" (comma-separated lists usually > > say "A, B, C, and D"). I guess it isn't there because of "as well > > as", but I'd put it there anyway. > > Doesn't sound right to me when I speak it aloud. I would like > some other opinions on this as well. I like Thomas' suggestion: "version of Debian), and providing all the...". Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Is it too late to extricate myself | | from this plot line?" | | "Yes." -- Fluble| \-- A duck! -- http://www.python.org -/
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
ut is not > necessarily limited to, providing security updates for > previously-released versions of Debian, providing point-release > updates to previously-released versions of Debian, preparing for the > next (compliant) release of Debian, actually releasing the current > non-compliant version of Debian if such a release is imminent (as well > as any further updates to that version of Debian), and providing all > the Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists. > > In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to > release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our > commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on > as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance > with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to > security releases and point releases as well. > > Rationale > > My intent was not just to find a way for us to allow to release Sarge, > it was to create a guideline to help ease us through major changes in > something like the Social contract, or the constitution. The fact that > a generic transition guide may help us also release Sarge soon is a > nice side effect. > > It has been suggested that transitioning ought to be handled in the > original proposal itself, and yes, that is a good idea. But foresight > is weak, compared to 8/20 hind sight, and there may be unforeseen > consequences of a proposed change that were not evident while drafting > the proposal. > > Nothing is perfect. I would much rather we also had a process defined > to pick up the pieces if the before-the-fact transition plan blew up > in our face; this is way better than relying on perfect foresight in > transition plans. > > The other issue addressed in the proposal is one of choosing between > two different requirements of the social contract; and how to balance > these different requirements when some of these requirements are > changed. > > Since this modifies the Constitution, this requires a 3:1 majority to > pass. > > > -- > Tell the truth or trump--but get the trick. Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead > Wilson's Calendar" > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> > 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E > 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C > -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Inconceivable!" | |-- "The Princess Bride" | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Tested apt-watch
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 05:32:06AM -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Anyways, for now at least, this is largely outside the scope of Debian > (though, looking at the social contract, the most recent editorial > changes managed to remove the introductory paragraph which had as its > first sentence "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who > have made common cause to create a free operating system." -- and our > web site looks like it's never had that paragraph). That's the first paragraph of the Constitution, not the SC. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Systems in which an event can happen before itself do | | not seem to be physically meaningful." -- Leslie Lamport | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/
Re: Transcript of the Debate
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0500, Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > When and where will the transcript of the DPL candidates' debate > be posted? It's been posted here for several days: http://dopey.debian.net/debian-debate_20020324.html Daniel -- /-------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | If you wish to live wisely, | | ignore sayings--including this one. | \ Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about DPL election results
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote: > > fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss: > > > But there is no such number. So my question is: who did not meet > > > quorum? How can I see this from the tally table? > > > > You have to look at (X,5) - (5,X), which gives you: > How this? Do you have any references? I do not find such a > rule, neither in current constitution nor in the current voting > amendment draft. From the section of the constitution quoted earlier, the quorum is the number of people who must prefer an option to the default option. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic| |design flaw. It has a tendency to bend at the knees.| | -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_ | \- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about DPL election results
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:29:15AM -0500, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard > to say: > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote: > > > fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss: > > > > But there is no such number. So my question is: who did not meet > > > > quorum? How can I see this from the tally table? > > > > > > You have to look at (X,5) - (5,X), which gives you: > > How this? Do you have any references? I do not find such a > > rule, neither in current constitution nor in the current voting > > amendment draft. > > From the section of the constitution quoted earlier, the quorum is > the number of people who must prefer an option to the default option. ...of course, this only applies to the winner, but presumably the scripts did the calculation for everyone and ignored the results for all the non-winning options. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Construction.| \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about DPL election results
Right, my brain seems to be switched off this morning. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ |Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic| |design flaw. It has a tendency to bend at the knees.| | -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_ | \-- A duck! -- http://www.python.org -/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: prize dept
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:10:32AM +, Jonathan Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Forgot to include the list ... > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:48:01AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:27:24PM -0400, Christine Stockdale wrote: > > > So, where's the prize? > > > > Does anyone know what's going on? This is the third on this list. > > Is someone running a scam with our name on it? Is it fallout from > > a new worm? > > I strongly believe these emails (and also those purporting to be from > very, /very/ new Windows users, e.g. "My XP says I need driver? Where > from?") to be email gathering ploys to catch addresses from > /definately/ live accounts. I've wondered that, but this latest one (I haven't checked the others) has a From: address which appears at a quick glance to be a user of a legitimate Canadian ISP. (see www.sympatico.ca) Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5
Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this email? Daniel -- /-------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Voodoo Programming: Things programmers do | | that they know shouldn't work but they try | | anyway, and which sometimes actually work, | | such as recompiling everything. | \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-free and users?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package > with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help > people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethical action when > someone, for example, will request sources from me. Suppose you package foo-nonfree, a package whose source code is not available. Some time later, a user requests the sources from you. You reply, "I'm sorry, I don't have the source code and so I can't give it to you." How is this worse than your proposed response, when a user requests a package for foo-nonfree, of "I'm sorry, I don't have the program and so I can't give it to you."? (leaving aside the fact that source code for most of non-free is available) Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | I haven't lost my mind, | | I know exactly where I left it. | \- Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org -- Because. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it. On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > >further cause for deliberation. > > > I wish to propose the following amendment: > > That point 2. above be changed to read: > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the >Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of >the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without >further cause for deliberation. > > Rationale: > > > A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us > > ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that > > maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program > > components of Debian vis ? vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern. > > While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge, > without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not > release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best > to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect > rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although > on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but > it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may > result in an inferior product. > > I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by > September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just > in case. > > Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you > accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for > this amendment to the proposal. -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "We've got nothing to fear but the stuff that we're | | afraid of!" -- Fluble | \--- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
Suggest "and" before the "actually" (comma-separated lists usually say "A, B, C, and D"). I guess it isn't there because of "as well as", but I'd put it there anyway. > In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release > currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release, > and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment > to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned - > even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with the new > Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to security releases > and point releases as well. Looks ok, and it's going to go poof in a finite amount of time anyway so I didn't look to closely at it. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | Voodoo Programming: Things programmers do | | that they know shouldn't work but they try | | anyway, and which sometimes actually work, | | such as recompiling everything. | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Sun, 2 May 2004 14:59:11 -0400, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Meeting our commitments as described in the Social Contact is an > >> ongoing process. Since we have recently changed these commitments, > >> we need an interval of time before we can approach compliance. > > > This last sentence shouldn't be in the present tense, since it > > won't always be true :) > > > I suggest: > > > When we change these commitments, there will be an interval of > > time before we can approach compliance. > > Umm. > Whenever we change these commitments, we may need an interval of > time before we can approach compliance. Yes, that wording is better. > >> There is precedent for a gap between ratifying a change to the > >> foundation documents of the Project and implementing dictates of > >> that document; when the Project first accepted the Social Contract > >> and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, there was an interval > >> before we came into compliance with those then-new documents. > > > s/those/these/, maybe. (honestly, I don't know why I feel that > > should change) > > Umm, no. This is a specific precedent setting example, > so those is correct here, I think. Okay. > >> We affirm that whenever a change to the Social Contract, or the > >> Constitution, takes place, the activities required to provide > >> ongoing and proactive support for the Debian user community shall > >> continue. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, > >> providing security updates for previously-released versions of > >> Debian, providing point-release updates to previously-released > >> versions of Debian, preparing for the next (compliant) release of > >> Debian, actually releasing the current non-compliant version of > >> Debian if such a release is imminent (as well as any further > >> updates to that version of Debian), as well as providing all the > >> Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists. > > > Suggest "and" before the "actually" (comma-separated lists usually > > say "A, B, C, and D"). I guess it isn't there because of "as well > > as", but I'd put it there anyway. > > Doesn't sound right to me when I speak it aloud. I would like > some other opinions on this as well. I like Thomas' suggestion: "version of Debian), and providing all the...". Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Is it too late to extricate myself | | from this plot line?" | | "Yes." -- Fluble| \-- A duck! -- http://www.python.org -/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
> necessarily limited to, providing security updates for > previously-released versions of Debian, providing point-release > updates to previously-released versions of Debian, preparing for the > next (compliant) release of Debian, actually releasing the current > non-compliant version of Debian if such a release is imminent (as well > as any further updates to that version of Debian), and providing all > the Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists. > > In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to > release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our > commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on > as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance > with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to > security releases and point releases as well. > > Rationale > > My intent was not just to find a way for us to allow to release Sarge, > it was to create a guideline to help ease us through major changes in > something like the Social contract, or the constitution. The fact that > a generic transition guide may help us also release Sarge soon is a > nice side effect. > > It has been suggested that transitioning ought to be handled in the > original proposal itself, and yes, that is a good idea. But foresight > is weak, compared to 8/20 hind sight, and there may be unforeseen > consequences of a proposed change that were not evident while drafting > the proposal. > > Nothing is perfect. I would much rather we also had a process defined > to pick up the pieces if the before-the-fact transition plan blew up > in our face; this is way better than relying on perfect foresight in > transition plans. > > The other issue addressed in the proposal is one of choosing between > two different requirements of the social contract; and how to balance > these different requirements when some of these requirements are > changed. > > Since this modifies the Constitution, this requires a 3:1 majority to > pass. > > > -- > Tell the truth or trump--but get the trick. Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead > Wilson's Calendar" > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> > 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E > 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C > -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Inconceivable!" | |-- "The Princess Bride" | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Tested apt-watch
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 05:32:06AM -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Anyways, for now at least, this is largely outside the scope of Debian > (though, looking at the social contract, the most recent editorial > changes managed to remove the introductory paragraph which had as its > first sentence "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who > have made common cause to create a free operating system." -- and our > web site looks like it's never had that paragraph). That's the first paragraph of the Constitution, not the SC. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | "Systems in which an event can happen before itself do | | not seem to be physically meaningful." -- Leslie Lamport | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:42:53PM -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want > > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of > > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your > > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical. > > So why don't any of the proposed GRs say this? Could you explain why this paragraph in proposal E is insufficient? " In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to security releases and point releases as well." Thanks, Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | A: No. See http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html | | Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? | \ Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > I have no interest in blaming people for the present state of affairs -- > not AJ, not my co-sponsors of 003 -- only in getting things situated so > we can get back to our job of releasing the most complete Free OS that > ever existed (whatever the community decides this should actually mean). Hear, hear. Daniel -- /---------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\ | You are in a maze of twisty little signatures, all alike. | \-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2005 Results
On Monday 11 April 2005 04:41 pm, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > For those who are tired of pressing page up/page down to understand the > listing... a s/Option \d/$candidates[$1]/ge is helpfull... Or you could look at Manoj's cool graph. I think it's linked as the "statistics" page. Daniel -- /------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\ | The perfect is the enemy of the good. | | The good is the enemy of the perfect. | \ Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org -- Because. ---/ pgpFvqpomDu4o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Transcript of the Debate
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0500, Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > When and where will the transcript of the DPL candidates' debate > be posted? It's been posted here for several days: http://dopey.debian.net/debian-debate_20020324.html Daniel -- /-------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\ | If you wish to live wisely, | | ignore sayings--including this one. | \ Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
