Re: Call for seconds - DC concept (was: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, > > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. > > I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds. > > | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are > not > | working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not > provided by > | the project with as much help as might be possible, useful or required, > nor > | opportunities to join the project. > | > | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve contributors > more > | closely with and within the project so that they can get both recognition > and > | the necessary tools to do their work. > | > | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce > mailinglist is > | not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large part of our > | community. We invite the DAM and all the contributors to further develop > their > | ideas in close coordination with other members of the project, and to > present a > | new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future. > | > | Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within > | the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general > | resolution. seconded -- Luca Filipozzi, Director of Operations, UBC Electrical and Computer Engineering signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > cross-distribution cooperation Seconded. -- Luca Filipozzi
Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > > cross-distribution cooperation > > Seconded. Let me sign this before Kurt responds. -- Luca Filipozzi signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Debian's paypal account
My recollection of the conversation regarding Debian's paypal account (over a social dinner, where spit-balling on a variety of topics was underway) is that a hypothetical was posed: If SPI can't offer paypal accounts to all projects due to paypal restrictions on number of accounts, then maybe no project should have one via SPI. It was meant to trigger a conversation about how SPI is trying to offer equivalent services to projects, not just to the first one one through the door with a good idea (another example is Slack for Nonprofits.) Anyway, after some back-and-forth, the conversation ended with: SPI needs to find a way to offer paypal services (or similar) to the other projects. This might mean restructuring things but definitely not taking a service / capability away from Debian. I think that this didn't register with all parties of that conversation, resulting in different take-away impressions. As a member and not an officer of it, I don't speak for SPI's Baord. -- Luca Filipozzi
Re: Question to Brian: Why do you need to be DPL to set up foundations?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:47:25PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Thomas Goirand [2020-03-19 14:43]: > > highlighting the past problems with SPI (I kind of was shocked to > > read about the paypal account, I somehow missed what happened...). > > I think this might be a misunderstanding. > > SPI does not want get rid of PayPal. > > The problem is that there is one SPI PayPal account for Debian and one > SPI PayPal account for all other SPI projects. This kind of special > casing for Debian is something SPI would like to resolve in some way; > there are no plans of removing PayPal. > > (I don't speak for SPI, etc) Indeed, the comments regarding paypal are a gross (in my view) mischaracterization in Brian's platform. See [1] for what I prevsiouly wrote on that topic. His other comments aren't entirely accurate, either (in my view). Sam's comments regarding legal representation and insurance for project leaders are more on-point: we are working on the former and have not discussed the latter. [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2020/03/msg00021.html -- Luca Filipozzi
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait: > > #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in > > the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian > > resource. Take your personal gripes up with the channel founder, which > > is currently Wichert Akkerman. > > It's absolutely fantastic. Each person has its own opinion about who has > the right to decide about this issue. Branden doesn't agree with you for > example (ie he doesn't think that it's up to Wichert to decide) ... Wichert is the channel founder for #debian-devel. Branden is a channel operator (chanop) for #debian-devel. He was given chanop by Wichert. Andrew is an irc operator (ircop) for Open Projects Network, as am I. Andrew is correct when he says that channel issues are to be brought up with the channel founder. OPN policy has been, thus far, to leave the resolution of channel problems up to the channel founder, and his delegates, the channel operators. Only in *extreme cases* do irc operators interfere with channel operations. So, Branden's opinion doesn't seem relevant here. As far as OPN is concerned, channels are the domain of channel founders. If Debian wishes to operate it's own servers so that it can have channel policies different than those of OPN's, so be it. > I really wonder why we have a constitution and a vote system if > it's not meant to be used... why do people fear using our (more or less) > democratic « tools » ? The point here is not whether people are afraid of using these democratic tools, but whether these tools are applicable. They are not as far as OPN is concerned (at least, thus far [1]). > Wichert, as the channel founder, which policy should be applied on > #debian-devel ? > > If you don't think that it's up to you to decide, what is the correct > way to decide the policy for the channel ? If Wichert wants to hand channel founder to the current DPL, he may do so. If the current DPL doesn't hand over the channel founder to the next DPL, he may do that, too. Again, as far as OPN is concerned, channels are the domain of the channel founders. > > > nothing came out. Now I've launched a general resolution so that we can > > > take a final decision and stop loosing time with such stupid issues. > > > > And if it passes, exactly nothing will change. Debian has no power to > > enforce this policy. > > I hope the operators (who are Debian developers) will accept Debian's > decision. Otherwise I really don't see why we have a constitution ... Channel operators serve at the desire of the channel founder. Generally speaking, IRC operators do not interfere with channel operations. The Debian constitution does not apply to OPN. If Debian wants its constitution to apply to irc.debian.org, then Debian should establish its own servers under irc.debian.org and not link to irc.openprojects.net. Please note: I am *not* advocating that Debian set up its own IRC network. I'm trying to clarify the difference between Debian and OPN. HTH, Luca [1] lilo, OPN founder, has established these policies. He could, of course, change his mind. I doubt that he will. -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 08:57:57AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Anyway what I meant is that i don't need to prove that #debian-devel > is debian related and that it can be made official. It cannot be made official because the resources on which #debian-devel exists are not the property of Debian nor under the control of Debian. If you insist on having #debian-devel be an Official Debian IRC Channel, then I suggest you modify your GR to state: "I propose that Debian dissociate itself from OpenProjects IRC Network and that Debian establish its own IRC network on its own hardware. This new IRC network will be called irc.debian.org and have no association with irc.openprojects.net." Until that happens, the #debian-devel is a channel on OPN and will live by OPN's policies, which, in effect, say that #debian-devel is allocated to Wichert Akkerman. I think your options are as follows: (1) change your GR as I suggest above, or (2) petition Wichert Akkerman to change the founder to the DPL *and* convince the DPL that these policies should be instituted *and* ensure that the DPL understands that the channel belongs to the DPL not to himself personally, or (3) petition lilo to take #debian-devel away from Wichert Akkerman. Option (3) is highly unlikely. Option (1) is unlikely to meet with the approval of those organizations that sponsor the colocation of our hardware. Option (2) is the most likely. Until you hear from Wichert Akkerman, your GR is moot. A Debian GR has no authority over Wichert Akkerman's use and or abuse of #debian-devel on OPN, since OPN is not a Debian resource. Wearing his OPN IRC Operator hat, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged. msg01227/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 05:56:47PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I don't think so. Overfiend told that he would apply whatever policy we > come up with. According to that statement, it's up to Debian to clarify > how #debian-devel should be managed. Branden Robinson is not the channel founder of #debian-devel. Wichert Akkerman is. As far as OPN is concerned, Wichert Akkerman rules #debian-devel, not Debian. If you are not happy with my interpretation of OPN policies, please address your concerns to lilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Yours, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged. msg01230/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009: Final call for nominations.
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:53:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > "To be valid, a Debian Developers can send a signed email in which they > > nominate themselves, to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org lists" > > > this nicely avoids gender issues while not having to use single plural > > idiosynchracies) > > "a Debian Developers"? :) "can"? "lists"? How about... In order for their self-nominations to be considered valid, Debian Developers must send a GPG-signed email in which they nominate themselves to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org mailing list. -- Luca Filipozzi, Director of Operations, UBC Electrical and Computer Engineering -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Call for seconds] GR: diversity statement for the Debian Project
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:32:41PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE > > The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. > > No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we > welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they > interact constructively with our community. > > While much of the work for our project is technical in nature, we value > and encourage contributions from those with expertise in other areas, > and welcome them into our community. > > TEXT TO BE VOTED ENDS HERE Seconded. -- Luca Filipozzi Member, Debian System Administration Team signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === seconded. -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:25:56PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:23:26PM +, Andrew Suffield écrivait: > > #debian could also be considered a representative part of Debian in > > the eyes of the casual visitor, but it is also in no way a Debian > > resource. Take your personal gripes up with the channel founder, which > > is currently Wichert Akkerman. > > It's absolutely fantastic. Each person has its own opinion about who has > the right to decide about this issue. Branden doesn't agree with you for > example (ie he doesn't think that it's up to Wichert to decide) ... Wichert is the channel founder for #debian-devel. Branden is a channel operator (chanop) for #debian-devel. He was given chanop by Wichert. Andrew is an irc operator (ircop) for Open Projects Network, as am I. Andrew is correct when he says that channel issues are to be brought up with the channel founder. OPN policy has been, thus far, to leave the resolution of channel problems up to the channel founder, and his delegates, the channel operators. Only in *extreme cases* do irc operators interfere with channel operations. So, Branden's opinion doesn't seem relevant here. As far as OPN is concerned, channels are the domain of channel founders. If Debian wishes to operate it's own servers so that it can have channel policies different than those of OPN's, so be it. > I really wonder why we have a constitution and a vote system if > it's not meant to be used... why do people fear using our (more or less) > democratic « tools » ? The point here is not whether people are afraid of using these democratic tools, but whether these tools are applicable. They are not as far as OPN is concerned (at least, thus far [1]). > Wichert, as the channel founder, which policy should be applied on > #debian-devel ? > > If you don't think that it's up to you to decide, what is the correct > way to decide the policy for the channel ? If Wichert wants to hand channel founder to the current DPL, he may do so. If the current DPL doesn't hand over the channel founder to the next DPL, he may do that, too. Again, as far as OPN is concerned, channels are the domain of the channel founders. > > > nothing came out. Now I've launched a general resolution so that we can > > > take a final decision and stop loosing time with such stupid issues. > > > > And if it passes, exactly nothing will change. Debian has no power to > > enforce this policy. > > I hope the operators (who are Debian developers) will accept Debian's > decision. Otherwise I really don't see why we have a constitution ... Channel operators serve at the desire of the channel founder. Generally speaking, IRC operators do not interfere with channel operations. The Debian constitution does not apply to OPN. If Debian wants its constitution to apply to irc.debian.org, then Debian should establish its own servers under irc.debian.org and not link to irc.openprojects.net. Please note: I am *not* advocating that Debian set up its own IRC network. I'm trying to clarify the difference between Debian and OPN. HTH, Luca [1] lilo, OPN founder, has established these policies. He could, of course, change his mind. I doubt that he will. -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged.
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 08:57:57AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Anyway what I meant is that i don't need to prove that #debian-devel > is debian related and that it can be made official. It cannot be made official because the resources on which #debian-devel exists are not the property of Debian nor under the control of Debian. If you insist on having #debian-devel be an Official Debian IRC Channel, then I suggest you modify your GR to state: "I propose that Debian dissociate itself from OpenProjects IRC Network and that Debian establish its own IRC network on its own hardware. This new IRC network will be called irc.debian.org and have no association with irc.openprojects.net." Until that happens, the #debian-devel is a channel on OPN and will live by OPN's policies, which, in effect, say that #debian-devel is allocated to Wichert Akkerman. I think your options are as follows: (1) change your GR as I suggest above, or (2) petition Wichert Akkerman to change the founder to the DPL *and* convince the DPL that these policies should be instituted *and* ensure that the DPL understands that the channel belongs to the DPL not to himself personally, or (3) petition lilo to take #debian-devel away from Wichert Akkerman. Option (3) is highly unlikely. Option (1) is unlikely to meet with the approval of those organizations that sponsor the colocation of our hardware. Option (2) is the most likely. Until you hear from Wichert Akkerman, your GR is moot. A Debian GR has no authority over Wichert Akkerman's use and or abuse of #debian-devel on OPN, since OPN is not a Debian resource. Wearing his OPN IRC Operator hat, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged. pgp9brPjG0Me4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 05:56:47PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I don't think so. Overfiend told that he would apply whatever policy we > come up with. According to that statement, it's up to Debian to clarify > how #debian-devel should be managed. Branden Robinson is not the channel founder of #debian-devel. Wichert Akkerman is. As far as OPN is concerned, Wichert Akkerman rules #debian-devel, not Debian. If you are not happy with my interpretation of OPN policies, please address your concerns to lilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Yours, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi [dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged. pgpaISuFk0YrR.pgp Description: PGP signature
