Re: recent changes to the CRA address FLOSS community concerns?

Le Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 11:41:08AM +0100, Ilu a écrit : > There is also no way and no necessity to adapt the GA text based on > unofficial rumors since ... > > > ... the answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and > > consider each bullet point we make --- ... the European legislat

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > > >

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing > political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a > GR. The less we know about t

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Le Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 04:14:51PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit : > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:06:42PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > > On 2023/11/26 21:24, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > We should not just put out a statement just because others have done so, > >

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 09:59:16AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > As I understand, the EU legislative process is quite advanced now, and > I doubt we have the time to build "the perfect response". And the > answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and consider > each bullet point we mak

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Le Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 07:38:40PM +0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit : > Hi Bill > > On 2023/11/24 19:14, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I offer the following ballot option for your consideration. > > > > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > > > The D

Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Dear Developers, I offer the following ballot option for your consideration. - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability Directive' that a

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens a écrit : > > The Debian project asks the EU to not draw a line between commercial > and non-commercial use of FOSS. But the EU already does, all the time, really. This is simply not realistic. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl h

Re: Changing supermajority requirements

Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit : > Hi, > > the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem > excessive to me: > > Constitution changes: > > +--- > | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > | [...] > | 5.1.5.3: A Found

Re: This does not have to be a GR

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Excuse me to insist with vocabulary, but since you've use the word "law" 6 > times above: the EU isn't a state or a nation, and doesn't make laws. We're > talking about "directives", that eventually will be implemented as laws in > e

Re: This does not have to be a GR

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 04:54:30PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100]: > > Dear Debian voters, > > > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > > only to show we exists, I am quite sure

Re: This does not have to be a GR

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:37:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear Debian voters, > > > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > > only to show we exists, I am quite sure

This does not have to be a GR

Dear Debian voters, While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary for Debian to issue such statement, and I am quite unconvinced the GR process is the best option for the purpose of drafting such statement. I

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it > ever comes to it". > > Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's cop

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit : > Simon Josefsson writes: > > ... > > I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change > > approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however, > > is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than p

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > > However, I'm pointing out that Debian generally follows a different > > tactic. And I don't think that it would be a good idea for Debian to > > switch tactics. > > Right, I agree, although my perception is that Debian is anot

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit : > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in > > your hardware is better than having it loaded from y

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > Russ Allbery writes: > > I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers > under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just > hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the De

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit : > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in > your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS? My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much more favorable to the

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:19:59PM +, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert > wrote: > >Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > >> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to requir

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit : > 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 choices an

Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:17:49PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > I'm glad to see that secret votes as we have now didn't seem to encourage > 'opinions about non-technical issues outside the social contract'. So far, > such > GR proposal reached zero support, Debatable, as the archive show

Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode 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. > > This is a proposal for Debian to issue a statement on an > issue of the day as given as an exam

Re: Question to all candidates: registering Debian as an organization

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:40:36AM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > If there was a single Debian foundation, Debian members would be split > > between those that are in the juridiction of the foundation and those > > that are not and the former would be inevitably advantaged. > > Would moving such

Re: Question to all candidates: registering Debian as an organization

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 09:41:49AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > Currently, the Project has no legal standing of its > own, meaning that within any legal context, there is no Project. Indeed, it is a great feature of Debian that it is not bound to any particular juridiction, it only exists thr

Re: Question to all candidates: registering Debian as an organization

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 05:30:30PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > Jonathan has already addressed this in his platform, acknowledging Brian > Gupta's 2020 campaign focus on this, so this is mostly a question for > Hideki and Felix: > > What is your position on registering Debian as an organizati

Re: GR Ballot Option: (first draft) No change to voting, recommend against GR for non-technical issues

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:56:07PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi Bill, > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:12:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Anyway, how do we proceed here? > > We should merge them! Maybe you could suggest a new wording ? > > given that my

Re: Secure, Secret, and Publicly Verifiable Voting

On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 11:26:28AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes: > > > In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to > > have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be > > simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots,

Re: eMail voting (was GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 06:41:54PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must > >conduct a vote via email. There are no current plans to move away from > > This is a very bad idea. > > Alternative solutions may > • have accessibility prob

Re: Alternative: only make vote tally available to DD (or to voters)

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:47:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > A suggestion: > > > > An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only > > accessible by DD (or more generally t

Re: Reaffirm public voting

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Hello, > > Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit : > > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details, > > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to > > achieve fully, [...

Alternative: only make vote tally available to DD (or to voters)

A suggestion: An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether they did not not). This would still allow voters to check the vote but would not allow outside parties to use it (unless some DD leaks it, alas

Re: Reaffirm public voting

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and > > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals > > of openness and transparency. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. From some p

Re: GR Ballot Option: (first draft) No change to voting, recommend against GR for non-technical issues

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:21:04PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi Bill, > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:10:53AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Ballot Option > > = > > > > 1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at t

GR Ballot Option: (first draft) No change to voting, recommend against GR for non-technical issues

Dear developers, I propose the following ballot option for the current GR: Ballot Option = 1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at this time. 2) General resolutions that probe developpers opinions about non-technical issues outside the social contract a

Re: Secret Ballots: How Secret

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 04:14:34PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes: > > > You are absolutely right. > And in fact Don proposes to embody a requirement in the constitution > that would prevent plausible deniability in

Re: Secret Ballots: How Secret

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > TL;DR: I'm proposing that the way we handle DPL elections today is a > good start for what secret means. Alas it does not work since it does not provide plausible deniability. Let me explain. For DD election, devotee publish a vote

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1 > majority, and am seeking sponsors. Hello Russ, Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ? I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I was

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I think we should aim at shortening the voting period too, but likely not > by much. I would make the voting period last at least 9 days (and no more > than 14) with a requirement to include two week-ends. Then the secretary > shoul

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:56:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to > > the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not > > have allocate time to partic

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:01:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Having closely followed a bunch of GRs now, my personal impression is that > almost all of the substantitive discussion happens in the first week. > Some discussion continues into the second week, and for controversial GRs > a few more

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:18:24PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > Acting together with themselves? ;-) > > Thank you. > > --- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500 > +++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. > > I'd like to apologize to have started th

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

Hello, I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place. (please CC me). On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modif

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software. > > Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require > >

GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

Dear developers, I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration. (this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>) Asking for seconds, (please CC me) Bill. This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5,

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:06AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:02:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: >

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary): First of all, thanks a lot for your helpful contribution to this discussion. > > 2. This clau

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process [rescinded]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Hello developers, > > I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions"

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions". > > PROPOSAL START > = > Gen

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > > PROPOSAL START > > > === > > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian > > > Project, whi

[Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process

Hello developers, I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions". PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:53:19PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 + > Sam Kuper wrote: > > To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the > final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if > something is wrong. If

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bill Allombert wrote: > > - - - - - - - > > General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5: > > > > The Debian project resolv

[dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Hi, I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts t

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's > overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and > motivation? I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The purpose o

GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

Dear developers, I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration. Asking for seconds. - - - - - - - General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5: The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero Public License are not

Re: Summary for the upload package rules GR

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:43, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Questions raised in the discussion period that are relevant to the GR. > > This summary is all very nice, but IMHO does not reflect what this GR is > about. &g

Summary for the upload package rules GR

Dear Debian voters, I was asked to provide a summary of the current GR. Please keep in mind that the discussion period is over and that I am the proposer. Background: for as long as a I am DD, developers were allowed to perform binary-only upload. The FTP masters have removed this right for ARM

Calling for vote for pending GR

Hello Debian developers, According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007, --- The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform combined source and binary packages u

[GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads

Dear Debian voters, I hereby propose the following General Resolution for sponsoring. --- The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform binary-only

Re: [Amendement] override of resolutions 005, 006, 007, 008

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear Debian voters, > > > > I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment > > to the latest General Resolut

[Amendement] override of resolutions 005, 006, 007, 008

Dear Debian voters, I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther. = The Debian project resolves that: 1) Sven Luther is the best Debian developer ever. Ever. 2) The Debian proje

Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor > is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ? > relevant delegates/maint

Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of > turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through their body by banning somebo

Re: Status of recall and affimation resolutions

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:12:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall > > vote; > > Apart from the fact that these are under separate sectio

Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know > why you seconded this. Did he ? Frederik accepted the amendment but did not second it as far as I see. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a la

Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > , > | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software > | community (Social Contract #4); > | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel > | firmware issue; however, it is not

Re: [Amendement firmware GR] - Best effort / no regression

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > 4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean > having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in our > installer, and releasing etch according to schedule. Did you mean for 4 to > say "r

[Amendement firmware GR] - Best effort / no regression

Dear Debian developers, As an amendement to the firmware GR, I hereby propose the following position statement. === THE DEBIAN PROJECT: 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our users according to our Social Contract and

Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hi all, > > (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form, > as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0 I am quite concerned you still did not get past that. social_contract.1.1 has been voted upon

Re: Proposal: Apologize for releasing etch with sourceless/non-free firmware

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:03:47AM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > I propose the following option to the GR: > > > The Debian Project reaffirms its commitment of providing a 100% free > operating system, and reaffirms the decisions taken by GR 2004-03, but > some technical issues regarding firmware

Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into > something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial > adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then: > we created the non-free and con

Re: Let's vote ...

Hello GR proponents, before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware that would be affected by your proposal (and how). I already asked for something similar without answer in August. I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license reduce the usefulness of Debian

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:01:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the > > exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral > > equivalent of the kernel l

Re: Questions to the candidates

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:16:34AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > 4. In light of the well organised presence of Skolelinux and the >professional presence of Ubuntu at several conferences and exhibitions >do you believe Debian is represented adequately? I know it is a biaised view point, bu

Re: Question for Bill Allombert: the "menu" mess

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:38:51PM -0800, Ted Walther wrote: > Hi Bill. As the packager of "ratmenu", I've had to grapple with the > menu package, which you maintain. > > Bill, can you tell us the reason you chose to implement your own unique > configuration language for "menu"? Why did you choo

Re: QFAC - SPI

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:02:37PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > I admit I haven't read the platforms as thoroughly as I should've, so > forgive if it was covered... > > IIRC nobody talked about SPI in their platform. Is SPI important for > Debian? What is Debian's current relationship wit

Re: Code of conduct, question to all candidates

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:18:39AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At this point, I am not in favour of such code. I am in favour of giving > > general guidelines and but not to enforce them. People should follow > >

Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:17:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > 2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's non-technical > > >socio-religious views in

Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Why would we need "more total CPU time"? Not even leisner is > overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine. > (leisner has a different problem, though). > Hence, please explain why we need "more total CPU time

Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > > Now my question: > > > > > > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handl

Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Now my question: > > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more > openly? > > 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how? > > 3.) Do you think more DSA are needed? I would li

Re: Code of conduct, question to all candidates

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:20:59PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > What do you think of a code of conduct? What in your opinion would be a > lower limit on acceptable behavior? Do you think that strict rules would > be better than general guidelines? Who should be the judge if a > particular case fo

Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > The process to expel a developer is described in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html > I am not sure whether all expulsion attempts get far enough > to be recorded on -private or -project as described in > t

Re: Question for all candidates: what mistake will you _not_ make?

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > During DPL campaigning, it seems "in" for candidates to propose all > sorts of Great Things they will try to do once elected. While this is > obviously all interesting information, it leaves out something that, I > think, i

Re: NM process (was: Question to all candidates about the NM process)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:59:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Not that I couldn't have learned that also later, when I really needed > it. But the NM process was in fact a good opportunity to learn it > right, get immediate feedback on my achievements (and not via the > BTS...), and to take it s

Re: Question for Bill Allombert: independence

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:45:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Bill, > > You write in your platform that > > -- I am independent, so I will be able to represent all the developers. > > What is it that you're independent from that other candidates aren't, and > how exactly does independen

Re: Question to all candidates about the NM process

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Heya, > > Though there are often threads about problems with it on our mailing > lists, the NM process hasn't changed much in the last three or four > years. What do you think about the most common problems (takes too > long

Re: Question for all candidates

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi everyone, > > If you had to summarize your platform with 3 keywords, what would they be ? If such a necessity were forced upon me, I would answer "Liberté Égalité Fraternité". Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a larg

Re: Question for all candidates about their Plattform pages

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:25:49AM +0100, Jutta Wrage wrote: > In all other plattforms there are only minor validation problems that > can be corrected easily without making a noticible difference. But as > far as I can see, none of the pages really was valid HTML strict and > none (or nearly

Re: Questions for all candidates: role models

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:58:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Questions for all candidates: > > If elected, you will be the ninth Project Leader in Debian's history. Of > the preceding eight DPLs, which one do you admire most as a leader and why? Well, I don't know much about the four first

Re: Questions about Ubuntu

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:12:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As I understand, this aspect is completly lost in Ubuntu. Most major > > design decisions in Ubuntu are made by developers working for Canonical, > >

Re: questions for all candidates

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:00:25PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Martin was running this year, I would not. The last year the DPL focus ^ > has shifted from technical leadership to social leadership, and Debian > is more attr

Re: Questions about Ubuntu

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:23:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi everybody, > > here are some questions for all candidates. They are related to the > Debian-Ubuntu cooperation. (If you're not a candidate and wish to give me > your opinion on that subject, please do so by private mail or move

Re: question for all candidates

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:18:55PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Heya, > > Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in > the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered > by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from

Re: questions for all candidates

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:01:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The campaign period is open according to > , so here are two questions for all > of the candidates. > > 1. The past two years have seen higher numbers of candidates standing for DPL >tha

nomination

Dear Debian developers, I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the next Debian Project Leader. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. pgpZkdaUzNvnp.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: For those who care about the GR

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:10:14AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > The problem is, if DFSG #5 and #6 mean what you think they mean, they > effectively prevent _all_ license restrictions whatsoever. Because if DFSG 6 is only about license restrictions on usage. It does not cover restriction on di

  1   2   >