On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:23:22PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> > non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> > hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> > else's choice
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
> have to download non-free content.
So just like now.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
De
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> > be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> > on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> > given
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one
> > very
> > simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
>
> It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
> pretty stro
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:12:24AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> In fact, I am not sure if there are any real world examples of modern machines
> that would work properly without such firmware. Are there any machines on the
> market nowadays that do not require cpu microcode and do not require fir
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:30:43PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better
> outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
> likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
and also described a
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:14:31PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> >> Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include
> >> things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise).
> >>
> >> I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 08:59:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (Folks, please change the subject line when we're talking about Debian
> legal structure instead of the original topic.)
Please also note that this is still -vote@
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 10:19:47AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > "Our priorities are our users and Free Software" means that, in our decision
> making and our governance we should be oriented FIRST towards users and do
> what is good for the people who are using our software; and that our SECO
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> > the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> > votes?
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not hav
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> >> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> >> > to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
> >
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:40:46AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > It's understandable that there is no motivation to choose between two very
> > long and complicated (and similar but maybe not?) changes.
> >
>
> True, also (like in my case) I forced myself to find the time to read trough
> it an
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > The details of the results are available at:
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
>
> I think its a bit sad that even in Debian the motivation to vote seems to be
> pretty low. I'm wondering if there is anything we can do
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:31:30PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >When the Technical Committee votes whether to override a Developer who
> >also happens to be a member of the Committee, that member may not vote
> >(unless they are the Chair, in which case they may use only their
> >
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
> they want to express.
>
> When
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:08:02AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 1. Most importantly - what happens if the witch-hunt is successful and rms and
> the entire FSF board are sacked/forced to resign? Who replaces them? Who gains
> control over the FSF and the text of the GPL?
It's a broader question an
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:18:46PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over.
I must note that probably every controversial GR started with good
intentions gets such response sooner or later.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:34:22AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > ---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 suc
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:18:35PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Debian works with (or at least has worked with) the FSF in the past.
> We've invited people speaking in official FSF roles to our conferences.
> We've had people interact with them in their events and when working on
> maintaining their
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:17AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
>
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman
"will not"?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
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
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 Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:44:45PM +, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> Isn't it funny how in threads discussing social justice there are always the
> same opinions coming from the same names, time and time again?
Probably most other people don't care, don't see a reason to repeat the
majority opinion o
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:14:13AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Louis-Philippe Véronneau dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:10:31PM -0400]:
> > I'm not sure what this is then?
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/
>
> Uh...
>
> Er...
>
> Oh...
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Please, excuse
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:04:19PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> One of the options I had in my original proposal was that we could drop the
> requirement for transitions through apt, and instead provide transition
> scripts that use dpkg's --force options to go through an invalid state
> instead o
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:24:44AM -0800, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> The debate on systemd often turns into systemd vs. sysvinit because sysvinit
> is
> the working alternative right now. Unfortunately, this is a poor way
> to frame the
> debate. The reality is sytemd unit files are a really good idea
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:10:58AM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Do you think it's ok in any case to remove init scripts. Let's say an
> upstream stops maintaining init scripts,
In my experience init scripts can only be written for Debian, not
"maintained upstream".
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
De
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:46:27AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > I think that one choice is missing here. Could you please include
> > > something like this, just to see how many people are THAT radical?
> > > P.S. myself, I wouldn't vote for this even if I had a vote.
> >
> > > Choice 4: syst
On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 06:08:54PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> the main problem I see with this GR is that it is in essence a rehash of
> the GR[1] we had in 2014, with pretty much the same options minus the one
> that won, "A GR is not required."
The option that won is worded like this:
"""
The
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 06:13:49PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I am assuming that the DPL role will take 15 hours a week
For all 52 weeks? This sounds harsh.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> So, thinking a bit more about that, and using
> https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html as a basis, a split
> that could maybe work is:
Can it work without a GR?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:57:11AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > Like it or not, but there *is* a big difference in the project making
> > > something available for the big wide world (which a public NEW would
> > > be), or a user putting it somewhere readable for everyone even though
>
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 01:09:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > While we could update the wording to say s/CD/optical medium/ (or
> > something similar), SC seems like an odd place to give Debian redistributors
> > legal advice.
>
> I would have thought something like this would be best:
>
> We en
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I hereby propose the following GR:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> The following sentence is removed from the Social Contract §5:
>
> "We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these
> areas and determine if
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options
> > which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the
> > subject matter, participate in -vote.
>
> Right now we have been called for a vote, n
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:58:34PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I would like to propose the following amendment to Marga's GR:
>
> In addition to the proposed change, the project shall vote to
> empower the DPL together with the Project Secretary to make minor
> editorial changes in our foundat
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50:30PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Disbanding the TC would likely do more harm than good. There would be
> no way to conclude a disagreement.
>
> I suggested this before:
>
> TC actions should be limited solely to disagreement mediation, and only
> when
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
I have a feeling which isn't backed by anything t
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4).
Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:06:38PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > I must note that this is a list of "Voting announcements and discussion"
> > and not yet another place where people, many of them non-DD and thus not
> > entitled to vote or take part in the pre-vote procedures, could endlessly
>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02:22PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> I should not have mentioned any company at` all, sorry :(
That would be the first step, yes.
--
WBR, wRAR
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Of course RHEL and Fedora dropped sysvinit support, they are Redhat
> derived. Can anybody guess where systemd is devloped?
>
> The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then,
> until alternatives have stabil
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> ** Begin Alternative Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
> decided not to decide about the ques
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:30:46PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Upstream Developers considering a specific Free Software (including,
> > but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1)
> > fundamental to deliver the best Software releases, are fully entitled
> > to requir
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - begin proposal ->8
> Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its default
> init system for the next release. The technical committee decided not to
> decide about t
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I understand your point. But it feels to me like an abuse of the
> > CTs decision because it's on a related but different subject. I
> > would prefer that it would just make a position statement that
> > doesn't have an effect on th
46 matches
Mail list logo
