f-nominates "because it would be a shame if there were
only 1 candidate". If the sitting DPL is willing to go another year,
and nobody else stands for election, I don't think we should see it as
a sign of an unhealthy project, or try to correct it.
--
Peter Samuelson | or
ent.
If the rationale is a required part of a GR, should it be treated as
normative or informative? In other words, if I agree with the text of
a GR, but disagree with its posted rationale, am I supposed to vote for
or against it?
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To
er, Linux kernel, and root filesystem. Of course
we know there is a MIPS chip in there, but the device is not sold as a
computer or "host", but as a mere device that you plug into your
network along with your computers.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- [Forward] -
From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:01:13 +0100
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:43:32PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>
> [Johannes Wiedersich]
> > I would propose to create
y're intended for real hardware that isn't "the host CPU". Someone
also mentioned Postscript, roughly the same situation.
Good thing Z80 daughterboards to run CP/M applications are no longer
popular.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
I second all of the above options. I also approve in advance changing
the two instances of "1 November 2008" to some later date, in case the
Project would like to take responsibility for any regressions
discovered after 1 November.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
FTP Archive Team)"
That does not address my concern about doing an end-run around the NEW
queue, because NEW processing still happens for unstable and
experimental.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that happens as a
result of adding something to non-free would _not_ be bypassed in this
case - unless, of course, the ftpmasters actually want that.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
[*] It is absurd to even _have_ mandatory NEW processing by ftpmasters
if we don'
-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
> allowed to do so.
Seconded. (This is after Manoj expanded point 2 and Robert shortened point 4.)
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s will
not be enthusiastic about complying with a GR that requires a mechanism
to bypass the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
and sarge kernels. Not that that part is enforceable,
I'm pretty sure the RMs wouldn't actually allow that to happen.
Now if you change the wording to exempt our published releases from
this entire process, so that it applies only to unstable and testing,
it would be a lot easier to sup
[Syd Alsobrook]
> I have been a Sys Admin for just about ten years now.
[...]
Let me see if I can summarize your post.
You're not directly involved in Debian, you describe yourself as a
lurker, yet you're reading debian-vote when there isn't even a vote or
a vote proposal pending. And, in fact,
[Sven Luther]
> So, you are wrong, this is not about me, it is about debian, about its
> fundamental unability to handle social conflicts, about some DDs who
> sadly have achieved a situation of power, knowing no other way to handle
> critics without hurting the other side as much as they can.
If
[Sven Luther]
> So, you too, believe that what was done to me was acceptable, that
> everything is justifiable
Stop it, Sven, stop it. This thread is about Sam Hocevar and GNAA. It
is not about Sven Luther. We have had lots of other threads about Sven
Luther. Can you please let us have just _
[Martin Zobel-Helas]
> I don't see the reason here to reduce the time of the voting
> period. I understand "immediate vote" as per constitution as "voting
> without prior discussion period".
>
> Please give a reasonable argument, why the voting period for this GR
> should be reduced to one week.
[Debian Project Secretary]
> `This is a DRAFT ballot. Voting is not yet open.
> ==
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Friday, 28 Oct 2006
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 10 Nov 2006
Did y
[Manoj Srivastava]
> Given this official statement, I also suggest that the GR
> proposal is moot, since the proposer himself believes that the kernel
> modules in question can not be distributed by Debian legally.
There are a few firmware files which are sourceless but explicitly
_not_
[Sven Luther]
> and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
OH NO YOU DON'T.
This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
_not_ ab
[Eduard Bloch]
> > . Ship a separate non-free CD.
>
> > * Does bad things to our CD/DVD disk space requirements.
>
> How? Basedebs take about 40MB. I think there is a plenty of space on the
> non-free CD for those, together with udebs and boot images.
Because it implies that we p
[Matthew Garrett]
> The biggest area which is likely to bite us is with network cards,
> though we'll probably lose some degree of SCSI support as well.
Fortunately, at least with SCSI, users have a choice. They can buy
Adaptec or LSI 53c* and they get _truly free_ firmware (in the case of
Adap
[Sven Luther]
> To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered some advice. He's quite right that my views
are not those of a develope
[Steve Langasek]
> That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on how you see this
> being a loophole, in a sense that having the firmware on a ROM
> wouldn't also be?
The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source
[Ted Walther]
> Steve, you've had a day or two to answer this.
Ted, you've had days or weeks to answer dozens of questions posed to
"all the candidates" on this very mailing list. Including the one that
started this thread.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe you've answered _any_ of these in
[Ivan Kohler]
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.
> Currently GFDL is a license acknowledged as free by the great mass of
> the members of the free software community and as a result it i
[Hamish Moffatt]
> That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..."
> does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
> for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
> doesn't seem to affect its freeness.
One must remember, however, t
[Christopher Martin]
> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> agree with them.
And yet in this very thread we *still* have pe
[Kalle Kivimaa]
> > Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of a
> > GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, how delicious.
If you've got something to say, say it.
This _implicatio
[Sven Luther]
> /me wonders if there is a way to have a "we don't need a DPL" kind of
> vote possibility on the ballot ?
That option would "implicitly change a foundation document" and Manoj
would probably give it a 3:1 supermajority requirement.
But a candidate whose entire platform is "I promi
[Anton Zinoviev]
> This was the answer by Stallman:
[...]
> The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
>order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
>substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
>can be superficial r
[Bill Allombert]
> The DFSG says 'the license must not restrict ...', it does not say
> 'the program must not restrict ...'.
That's a fair point. I chose a bad example indeed.
You still haven't given a reasonable answer to the real point, though,
that being: "field of endeavor" does not mean "a
[Anton Zinoviev]
> > They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
> > that copy.
>
> No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist.
I have the root password. If I run 'su', I can read your document. If
I don't, I can't. You are now controlling ho
[Margarita Manterola]
> What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
> won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
> proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
The point is to explain to the world what is wrong with the GFDL. If
someone still w
[Frank Küster]
> > - Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
> > invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
> > refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical
> > problems that this would cause both for us and for our users.
>
> If yo
[Anton Zinoviev]
> If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian
> attempted to impose on the free software community alternative
> meaning of "free software", effectively violating its Social Contract
> with the free software community.
That does not follow at all. If the
[Russ Allbery]
> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
> and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
> can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
opti
[Bill Allombert]
> > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > using the software.
> >
> > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > documentation if they work in a security field.
>
> The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the doc
[Bill Allombert]
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > disk. In
[Wouter Verhelst]
> I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
> Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
> would imply.
Seconding doesn't mean voting for. Often someone will second an
amendment just to ensure that it gets on the ballot. Th
[Bill Allombert]
> Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
>
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
>
> Fact 2: The DFSG include this:
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The licens
[Anthony DeRobertis]
> If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the
> 3:1 requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to
> request that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned
> arguments against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of
No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style
[Anthony Towns]
> (0) Summary
>
> Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
> concern about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether
> it is, in fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to
[Helen Faulkner]
> Having just run the 2005 DPL IRC debate (and a stressful experience it
> was too), Martin Krafft and I would like to get feedback on what people
> thought of the debate and how it was run.
Thank you, Helen and Martin, for a job well done.
I think the most useful thing would be
[Anthony Towns]
> Hrm, I'm answering this as a "How will electing Anthony help users
> contribute?" question, rather than directly as the "How can user's
> contribute?" question it is.
Actually you didn't say anything related to the DPL post. Which I take
to mean, "these are all fine ways to get
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
49 matches
Mail list logo
