Hi Everyone
On 2022/09/07 18:26, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension
for the discussion period of 7 days.
Thank you all for taking the time to polish or add voting options over
the last week. I believe that the options w
Paul Wise writes:
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
I think that may be true from the perspective of what Debian is *allowed*
to do, but not in the sense of the guidance that the project is providin
On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.ca...@deb
I was asked offlist to answer how Proposal D would affect the display of
the non-free installer on Debian websites, and in particular:
* Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
tl;dr: No
* Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
https://lists
Bart Martens writes:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive
> available
> for d
Hey Ross!
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:04:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
>> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
>> disc
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
> discussion.
I had assumed "official" was in more common usage. It seems like that'
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software fro
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
> >> non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system
>
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
>> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
>> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along th
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software fro
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 20:31 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive
> available
> for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
>> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
>s/now/not/
>> just rewrite
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 06:26:29PM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>Dear Debian Secretary and Debian Developers
>
>As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension for
>the discussion period of 7 days.
>
>Apologies for jumping this on the last minute, I've been off
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:24:33AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
>> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
>> just rewrite it as: "
Hello
El 7/9/22 a las 20:31, Bart Martens escribió:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
s/now/not/
just rewrite it as: "contain
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-09-07 20:31:34)
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
> > that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
> s/now/not/
> > just rewrite it as: "contai
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
> that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
s/now/not/
> just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
> archive".
H
Dear Debian Secretary and Debian Developers
As per the Debian Constitution[1] (4.2¶3), I'm requesting an extension
for the discussion period of 7 days.
Apologies for jumping this on the last minute, I've been off-sick and
have been fiercely triaging and catching up with issues the last day or
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:3
Quoting Bart Martens (2022-09-07 00:27:40)
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Ma
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:3
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:56:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
>> Your words may cover where those packages are *today*,
>
>Exactly.
>
>> but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
>>
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> >> >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:3
On 9/6/22 01:09, Ansgar wrote:
You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images,
and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even
say that they have made decisions. So those options could be seen as
overriding a Developer, using the power of the Techn
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> > >> > I hereby propose the fol
> > > =
> > >
> > > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer
> > > images
> > > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the
> > > Debian
> > > archive available for download alongside with the free media in a
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
>> >> > I hereby propose the followi
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> >> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> >> > proposal.
> >> >
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
>> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
>> > proposal.
>> >
>> > =
>> >
>> > The Debian project is pe
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> > proposal.
> >
> > =
> >
> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> > and live ima
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:09:15AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 21:51 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images,
> > and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even
> > say that they have made decisi
On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 21:51 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images,
> and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even
> say that they have made decisions. So those options could be seen as
> overriding a Developer,
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
> really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
> that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
Is it possible that we can risk 3:1 supermajority and change SC so that
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>>
>> > I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
>> > least get an idea what the consensus is.
>>
>> DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications ab
Hey guys,
Apologies for not responding more promptly on this sub-thread :-/
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:51:24PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 08:00:48PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
...
>> [1] I understand that your (the Secretary's) current position is that you do
>> not ha
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 08:00:48PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>
> Thus, a possible precursor to an interpretive GR is that some person/group
> (e.g. ftpmaster, Project Leader, TC, Secretary[1]) makes the interpretive
> decision.
>
> If someone can make the decision, then they can be overruled[2
On 9/4/22 14:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm not sure that a GR should say what the interpretation of a document
should be. I really prefer that the document is changed instead so that
it's more clear on what it says.
I agree with "prefer", but I can't bring myself to say "require
[amendment]" or "
On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 09:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 19:57 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > My reading of that is that the FSF RYF program does not meet the needs
> > of people who do not care about having a fully free software system.
>
> My reading of it was the opposi
On 9/4/22 14:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Please note that the current discussion period ends the 7th, the maximum
discussion period is the 8th, which probably means I'll start the vote
the 9th or the 10th, and I think we're not actually going to be ready to
have all options like we want them by then.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 09:57:45AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > >
> > > > I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
> > >
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> >
> > > I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
> > > least get an idea what the consensus is.
> >
> > DSC 1 and DSC 5 have som
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
> archive available
Quoting Kurt Roeckx (2022-09-03 20:28:35)
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> > Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> > makes me sad. My preference for an ou
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
> lines.
>
> =
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>
> > I like to discussion about anything related to this, so that I can at
> > least get an idea what the consensus is.
>
> DSC 1 and DSC 5 have some implications about "the Debian system" vis-a-vis
> non-free, but the plan here is
https://linuxactionnews.com/256
On 9/1/22, Luna Jernberg wrote:
> https://youtu.be/csdtAcf5ZMs
>
> On 8/31/22, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>
>>> Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
>>> installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflic
Quoting Holger Levsen (2022-09-01 18:40:30)
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no
> > use for device firmware.
>
> yes.
>
> > Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
> > way for imag
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no
> use for device firmware.
yes.
> Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
> way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be
> redi
Hi Jonas,
On 8/31/22 18:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The only way I could see to solve that conflict (other than interpreting
the official installer as not part of Debian) was to keep the free-only
installer around for purity reason even though generally we would
promote another unofficial insta
i vote for Proposal B
On 9/1/22, Luna Jernberg wrote:
> https://youtu.be/csdtAcf5ZMs
>
> On 8/31/22, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>
>>> Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
>>> installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
>>
>> I
https://youtu.be/csdtAcf5ZMs
On 8/31/22, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
>> installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
>
> I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not wa
On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:19 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, just pushing a not-well-thought-idea: Would dak, apt, or any
> other bit of our infrastructure be very angry if non-free-firmware
> were to be not an additional component, but a strict subset of
> non-free?
>
> That is, all packages
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ==
>
> We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
> which says:
>
>Debian will remain 100% free
>
>We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
>"free" in th
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
> installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not want to
indiscriminately add more non-free software (even drivers are iff
Quoting Russ Allbery (2022-08-31 18:27:07)
> Stefano Rivera writes:
>
> > Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> > interpretation.
>
> > I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is
> > because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should
Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:00:40PM +0200]:
> > > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
> > > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
> > > require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
> > > not to inc
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:41:59AM -0700]:
> The phrasing of the constitution here is that the 2:1 majority is required
> for decisions that are authorized by the powers of the Technical
> Committee, and I think this sort of policy decision about how to handle
> non-free software is
Stefano Rivera writes:
> Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> interpretation.
> I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is
> because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
> Social Contract to explain how our non-free
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:38:13PM -0700]:
> > If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I
> > agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed.
>
> I'm not Kurt, but I think A.1.3 applies here:
>
> The proposer of a ballot option may ame
Antoine Beaupré dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400]:
> > Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
> > support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
> > [4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
> > yet to make use of this
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So, I propose the following:
>>
>> =
>>
>> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
>> "non-free-firmware" section of the De
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So, I propose the following:
>
> =
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> media (installer images and live image
El 29/08/22 a las 09:06, Simon Josefsson escribió:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> >> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> >
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later
Hi Russ (2022.08.30_02:55:11_+)
> Also, if the 3:1 majority option doesn't pass but a 1:1 option that
> doesn't require a supermajority does pass, that's also useful
> information. (For example, I believe that would imply that such an
> installer has to continue to be labeled as unofficial and
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I
> agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed.
I'm not Kurt, but I think A.1.3 applies here:
The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
none of the spon
Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:29:28PM +0200]:
> > >> >What's the rationale for this one?
> > >> >
> > >> >I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
> > >> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that
> > >> >packages from that component
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 05:05:35PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Didn't we have buster/updates for a while? Is breakage related to that
> the reason why we're not doing this here?
We didn't have "buster" and "buster/updates" in the same place. And
less "buster/updates" being a subset of "buster
On 2022-08-30 21:57:56, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 04:27:17PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>On 2022-08-30 21:11:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> But I want to be *very* clear here that we *don't* want to enable the
>>> whole of the non-free component for all users by default
Hi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me,
> this is the major relevant issue.
Nothing in Debian requires any non-free component. Require would be:
can't be used without, which clearly is not tru
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 04:27:17PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>On 2022-08-30 21:11:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> But I want to be *very* clear here that we *don't* want to enable the
>> whole of the non-free component for all users by default. That would
>> be a grave disservice, and I think A
Hey Russ!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 07:55:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>> It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
>> might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
>> require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secreta
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:00:50PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi Kurt! Let's send this signed now,
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> Hey Wouter!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM
On 2022-08-30 21:11:07, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey Antoine!
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
>>> Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
>>> support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
>>> [4]. This makes part o
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:22:39AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Steve McIntyre writes:
...
>>>Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
>>>non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
>>>support their use and welcome others to distribute
On 8/30/22 12:00, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:27:46AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
Regardless of that, and probably more importantly, I object to the idea that
a GR option winning could result in the whole GR being voided. Our voting
system is explicitly designed to take into a
Hey Antoine!
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
...
>I particularly want to salute your work on making our users actually
>capable of using more modern hardware. I think the proposal you bring up
>(and the others that were added to the ballot) will really help move
Hi Kurt! Let's send this signed now,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hey Wouter!
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, St
Hi Bart!
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:12:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:49:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hi Simon!
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or imag
On 2022-08-30 21:28:08, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> > Hi Steve (and everyone else),
>> > > I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
>> > > do wi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > Hi Steve (and everyone else),
> > > I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
> > > do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Hi Steve (and everyone else),
> > I believe that there is reasonably wide support for changing what we
> > do with non-free firmware. I see several possible paths forward, but
> > as I've stated previously I don't want to be making
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:49:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi Simon!
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
> >non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:02:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would
> like to see a discussion about that too.
>
> It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
> might conflict with the DSC, will be on the bal
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:27:46AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 8/29/22 16:02, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
> > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
> > require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think th
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> But it's currently not clear if this is a technical or non-technical
> decision, and so might require a 2:1 majority.
I forgot to comment on this point in my other message, but for what it's
worth, I have a hard time seeing any of the current ballot options as
technical. T
Hi Steve (and everyone else),
> I'm proposing to change how we handle non-free firmware in
> Debian. I've written about this a few times already this year [1, 2]
> and I ran a session on the subject at DebConf [3].
>
> TL;DR: The way we deal with (non-free) firmware in Debian isn't
> great. F
On 8/29/22 16:02, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Hi Simon!
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>>==
>>
>>We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
>>which says:
>>
>> Debian will remain 100% free
>>
>> We provide the guidelines that we use
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would
> like to see a discussion about that too.
> It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
> might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
> require a 3:1 majori
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 21:49 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be
> allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on it?
and if so, how/where should we be allowed to mention/document/promote
the images containing
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:38:52PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi Kurt!
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> Hey Wouter!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:36:37AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and
> > consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain
> > non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1.
>
>
Hi Simon!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>==
>
>We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
>which says:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" i
Hi Kurt!
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hey Wouter!
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >> sy
Vincent Bernat writes:
> On 2022-08-23 10:39, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
>> main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
>> not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
>
> The initial
On 2022-08-23 10:39, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
The initial proposition was also pushing a new n
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
