Seeking seconds:
===BEGIN
Replace the entire text with:
Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:
The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
we believ
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> being expelled from an association can be
> contested in regular courts.
So can incitement to mayhem. What if a crazy person harms a targeted
individual after reading Debian's statement?
Alternatively, please consider libel: Debian prob
Hi,
On 25.03.21 23:32, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> the "technical" decisions we make based on that also have political
>> consequences.
> That's taking meaning of the word 'political' in the widest possible
> sense, and in that sense, literally any action (or inaction) carried out
> by an indivi
M dB wrote:
> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving
> volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No.
[...]
> Nobody who wants rms off the FSF board is trying to destroy
> his life
I may be wrong, but it looks like Richard Stallman has dedicated his
life (or at least
Hi!
On 25.03.21 21:18, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
The point is who decides what the consequences are.
That should be up to the legal system, not to some ra
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> It is an
> infringement of the freedom of association of all other Debian developers if
> we are not able to exclude someone based on the views they express and the
> actions they take.
>
> Labor rights are entirely different f
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:21:56PM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
ok i can no longer be silent (and it's in no way referred to Philip,
whose email i'm reply to)
so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and
with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can
> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez writes:
>>
Roberto> Did Richard Stallman make an application to become a Debian
Roberto> Maintainer or Debian Developer? It is not clear how
Roberto> Richard Stallman is "included" in Debian in such a way that
Roberto> it would even make s
On Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
>
> If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely
> reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what
> you've said. They may decide that they don't want
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> But I digress, if we really want to be bold and show leadership, not
> only from the DPL but form the project, we should go a step further and
> make the Debian project not only a project to release and support a free
> software operating system, b
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at
On 25.03.21 22:32, Simon Richter wrote:
> Pretty much everything Debian does is political
> the "technical" decisions we make based on that also have political
> consequences.
That's taking meaning of the word 'political' in the widest possible
sense, and in that sense, literally any action (or i
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> We *entirely* have
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >>...
> > >> We *entirely*
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>...
> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not*
> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we
> believe to be bad, wro
It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call
to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for.
I agree with everything you are saying, but I note that the wording of
the open letter is much harsher, with statements like "our communities
have *no space* for peopl
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>...
> >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> >> what people say and do around u
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>...
>> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
>> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not*
>> in the situation where we *have
This is my first time posting in a Debian mailing list, apologies if the
tone or is not what you are looking for in a Debian post. I wrote this
hurriedly in an attempt to help the free software movement avoid
splintering.
Stallman asked women out in a way we consider creepy. The letter phrases
thi
Hi Roberto,
On 25.03.21 18:59, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> I understand that it is not always possible to be completely apolitical,
> even for Debian as an organization.
Pretty much everything Debian does is political.
Free software enables users' technical autonomy, and this completely
shifts
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:18:10PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
>
>I didn't start this discussion.
But you've spoken up in a previous discussion and we spoke then.
>> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:50:37PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I'm not sure I like this. I believe that removing the board is a
> critical part of the letter. They are 4 friends that RMS chooses that he
> chose because they never appose him. They are not elected by members of
> the FSF but a se
Hi Sean
On 2021/03/25 22:17, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The point of this is not to call for the removal of the entire FSF
> board, as the open letter does, while still supporting the main thrust
> of the open letter, which is about Stallman himself.
>
> The vote to restore Stallman to the board was n
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
I didn't start this discussion.
> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
The point is who decides what the consequences are.
That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of
peo
On 26/03/21 2:00 am, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Sruthi" == Sruthi Chandran writes:
> Sruthi> I propose that instead of signing the said letter, Debian
> Sruthi> issue a position statement. The text of the statement is
> Sruthi> adapted from the statements by FSFE and EFF.
>
> Srut
> "Sruthi" == Sruthi Chandran writes:
Sruthi> I propose that instead of signing the said letter, Debian
Sruthi> issue a position statement. The text of the statement is
Sruthi> adapted from the statements by FSFE and EFF.
Sruthi> Text of GR
Sruthi> Release a po
On 26/03/21 1:46 am, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
> On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 06:15PM +01, Martin Pitt wrote:
>
>> As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a
>> technical one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much
>> like the Debian leader voting?
>
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> The vote to restore Stallman to the board was not unanimous,
Sean> and there is some confusion about how the procedure for
Sean> elections to the board actually works, so the call to remove
Sean> *all* board members does not make sense to
Hello,
Seeking seconds:
===BEGIN
Replace the entire text with:
Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:
The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
we
Hello Martin,
On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 06:15PM +01, Martin Pitt wrote:
> As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a
> technical one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much
> like the Debian leader voting?
It's not technical indeed, but I think it would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/03/21 12:47 am, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sruthi Chandran writes:
>
>> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
>> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
>> Europe. [1]
>
>> Will share
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:59:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for
>> the project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will
>> not feel directly targeted, t
D'oh!
Due to cascading failures, I had to clearsign to get around some GMail
issues I've been having. It looks to have line wrapped me, I've attached
the content from above.
Additionally, my key expired, I've pushed an updated key to the
keyservers, as well as Debian's. I thought I did this last
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:59:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for the
> project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will not feel
> directly targeted, though they may disagree with the outcome.
Constitutionally, this is
Sruthi Chandran writes:
> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>>Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
>>body
>>who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>>
>>https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/m
Hey what's up doc,
On 2021-03-25 00:41:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23)
>> A few thoughts:
>>
>> - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much
>> anymore and is too loaded.
>
> Means too little and too much at the same time?!?
>
> https://w
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:19:19PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> D'oh!
>
> Due to cascading failures, I had to clearsign to get around some GMail
> issues I've been having. It looks to have line wrapped me, I've attached
> the content from above.
>
> Additionally, my key expired, I've push
On 2021-03-25 19:13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I dislike the conclusive judgemental framing of the previously
> referenced open letter, and consider it wrong for Debian as an
> organisation to make direct demands on how other organisations should
> conduct its business. I certainly would fin
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:37:26PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Seconded
I get a:
*BAD* signature from: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
a
Sruthi Chandran writes:
> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
> Europe. [1]
> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
> [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.ht
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:13:28PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body
> > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> > is
Hi,
I signed the letter because, among other things, I have my own
experience of hosting Stallman at my home few years ago.
But I believe that the choice to sign the letter must be individual.
Many of us have Stallman as a hero (despite all his problems) and do not
agree with the letter. And
> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez writes:
Roberto> Given the rush to shorten the discussion period and make it
Roberto> a simple yes/no vote, it does not seem likely that a
Roberto> well-worded statement could be put together, seconded, and
Roberto> then discussed.
If someone
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:28:14PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-03-25 19:21:36)
> >
> > Margarita Manterola writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly
> > >> compuls
Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-03-25 19:21:36)
>
> Margarita Manterola writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly
> >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote.
> >
> >
> > Also not true. The GR is
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:21:36PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly
> >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote.
> >
> >
> > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about
> > this or not. If you think Debian shou
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Sruthi Chandran (2021-03-25 18:29:32)
>>
>>
>> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek
>> wrote:
>> >Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
>> >body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>> >
>> >h
Margarita Manterola writes:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez
> wrote:
>
>> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly
>> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote.
>
>
> Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about
> this or not. If y
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Exactly -- if this is an open vote, I'm afraid that would merely force a
> > (possibly) large number of Debian members to not vote at all. Honestly,
> in that
> > ligh
Quoting Sruthi Chandran (2021-03-25 18:29:32)
>
>
> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> >Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> >body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
> >
> >https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Sandro,
>
> Sandro Tosi [2021-03-25 12:21 -0400]:
> > That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree
> > with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The
> > people that are so strongly push
On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
>body
>who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>
>https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
>is a statement whic
Hey Christian
On 2021/03/23 11:42, Christian Kastner wrote:
> However, looking at this from the other side of the argument, I still
> believe that relying on pure volunteer work has significant downsides to
> the quality of our distribution, downsides that IMO could or should
> easily be avoided b
* Sam Hartman:
> I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged
> discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting
> quickly in this instance.
I think the appendix to the open letter is problematic, and that might
warrant some discussion. Am I alone in this r
On 2021-03-25 04 h 18, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Why would someone get paid to organize one, though?
>
> I've never organized one, but it was my impression from others that this
> was always done voluntarily and from own initiative.
>
Jonathan said he didn't have time to organise one, Raphael r
Martin Pitt writes:
> As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a
> technical
> one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much like the Debian
> leader voting?
>
> You bring up a good point here. If this is going to be an open vote, then this
> is senseless p
Hello Sandro,
Sandro Tosi [2021-03-25 12:21 -0400]:
> That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree
> with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The
> people that are so strongly pushing for this (and many other) actions
> will have a list of (in their eye
Hi Sam
On 2021/03/25 17:58, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Bart" == Bart Martens writes:
>
> Bart> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:53:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> >> On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual
> >> developers go and make their voices heard.
>
> B
Daniel Lenharo dijo [Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:14:47AM -0300]:
> > so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and
> > with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can
> > easily discover how individuals voted on the issue?
>
> If we have a GR, that most of
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:19:26PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> But I digress, if we really want to be bold and show leadership, not
> only from the DPL but form the project, we should go a step further and
> make the Debian project not only a project to release and support a free
> software ope
On 2021/03/19 11:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 1/ Why have you all given up on the idea to lead Debian?
This question still bothers me a bit. Firstly, I don't see my previous
term or my upcoming term that way. I believe that considering the
climate in recent years in Debian, and considering all the
ok i can no longer be silent (and it's in no way referred to Philip,
whose email i'm reply to)
> so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and
> with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can
> easily discover how individuals voted on the issue?
That
> "Bart" == Bart Martens writes:
Bart> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:53:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual
>> developers go and make their voices heard.
Bart> Thank you Jonathan! I really hope most DDs feel the same
Hi,
Christian Kastner writes:
> Example #1: Orphaned/RFA'd packages
> ~~~
> Orphaned packages are packages that, by definition, no one is interested
> in maintaining. There are no volunteers willing to commit to them.
>
> However, some of these packages are important to the Debian ecosyste
M dB writes:
> - To be explicit to anyone reading this, this is exclusively about the
> Board of the FSF (and to some extent the Voting Membership -- if you're
> reading this you're probably not a voting member). This is not about the
> staff. This is not about the mission of the FSF. This is not
Em 25/03/2021 05:45, Philip Hands escreveu:
so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and
with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can
easily discover how individuals voted on the issue?
If we have a GR, that most of the people vote to have a po
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:53:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual
> developers go and make their voices heard.
Thank you Jonathan! I really hope most DDs feel the same way.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:25:19PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Can't you just express your opinion by yourself, by signing the letter?
I'm with Thomas on this.
Hello, and thanks for your answers!
Sruthi Chandran writes:
> On 23/03/21 2:41 pm, Bart Martens wrote:
>> 1/ One way of addressing this, is actively BENEFIT the underrepresented
>> profiles. Positive discriminiation is needed, at least to get over an initial
>> resistance. Put diversity in the s
I vote no.
I do not think Debian should be involved in personal attacks or
witchhunting for any reason.
I support the individual's choice to make their voice heard, but it is not
Debian's place to join in. I object to Debian's name being used in this way.
Query: Has this wording been approved by
Christian Kastner writes:
...
> * Someone gets paid to improve Debian
Some packages end up in this situation because there is no need for them
to be in the archive.
If you pay someone to keep them in, you are removing the evolutionary
pressure that ensures that Debian doesn't fill up with dro
Hi mak,
>Think about the signal
we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating
whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the
organization that's promoting software freedom.
Since this is being repeated everywhere and also on this vote, I just wanted to
On 23.03.21 17:28, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> If Debian paid for working on orphaned packages, then I would probably
> orphan some of the packages I now maintain as a volunteer, to then work
> on those same packages for pay.
First, I think that at least two alternative scenarios have to be taken
Daniel Lenharo writes:
> Em 24/03/2021 18:53, Jonathan Carter escreveu:
>
>> I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if
>> necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual
>> developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also
>> respect th
On 23.03.21 16:40, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Seems backwards to to me to pay for keeping packages alive that we have
>> lost interest in.
>
> That's a good point, I agree. What about packages that we have lost
> interest in, but that our users very much have not? Admit
On 23.03.21 16:04, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 2021-03-22 16 h 43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le vendredi, 19 mars 2021, 17.49:54 h CET Louis-Philippe Véronneau a écrit :
>>> I for one would be less motivated to help with videoteam tasks if I knew
>>> someone was paid to organise a min
Dear DPL candidates,
I would like to expand on the following example with a data point:
On 23.03.21 10:42, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Example 2#: Undermaintained packages, especially in stable
> ~~~
>
> This is something that every contributor, including me, can probably
> relate to.
>
On 3/24/21 11:10 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
> sexual preference [...]
s/sexual preference/sexual orientation/
Someone just pointed out to me that "sexual preference" may be
considered offensive. That's not my intention: I simply copied the
wording of Bart without enough thinking. I've re-re
Dear project secretary
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:54:16 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
Due to the timeliness of this GR, please reduce the discussion period
for this GR to o
79 matches
Mail list logo
