Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2009-01-01 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the > Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I doubt that this a usable definiti

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > But the way you wrote in 4 as "we will make any private discussions > publically available at the earliest opportunity." is problematic since > it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along "we will make > any private discussio

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented > over doctrinal disput

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mike Hommey: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer > > wrote: > >> * Theodore Tso: > >> > >> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > >> > Social Contract, which I obje

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Gerfried Fuchs: >> For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object >> to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute >> proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, >> or by linking them in some way). > > But it is. The web browser

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the > cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more > and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers > work together bett

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is > > there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal > > importance, there are six

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Gerfried Fuchs
* Florian Weimer [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]: > * Theodore Tso: > > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > > relaxed the f

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Daniel Moerner
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, >> please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of >> cardinal importance. Debian ha

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Clint Adams
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can > misjudge it... That's great. > If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a > more suitable version? I'm happy to delay the release in

[s...@powerlinux.fr: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations]

2008-12-29 Thread Wouter Verhelst
rsion=3.1.7-deb3 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:25 +0100 To: Anthony Towns , lea...@debian.org, da-mana...@debian.org, listmas...@debian.org, s...@powerlinux.fr Cc: debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org, Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenn

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, > please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of > cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to > the promise only i

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in > fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others, > Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the > FSF), Dynebolic, Mu

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and > I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch > of free st

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against > it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't > care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is > even o

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Mike Hommey
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Theodore Tso: > > > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Mike Hommey: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer > wrote: >> * Theodore Tso: >> >> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian >> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. >> > If there was a GR which chainged t

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change > > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to > > release... > > If you believe th

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Theodore Tso: > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on th

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I would personally prefer > > for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things > > on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...] > I wo

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG ?violations

2008-12-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >> I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian >> Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. >> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG ?violations

2008-12-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against >it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't >care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is >even one of them. Count me in as

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi, On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > > social contract" low

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]: > I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, > please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of > cardinal importance. I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that gNewSense alrea

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Joerg Jaspert
>> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change >> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to >> release... > If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny > with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, tha

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people > want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as > a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will > change, and we'll have this dis

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially > buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian > users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability), > and potentially usi

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > I'm not ashamed at all; I joine

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > > > > I'm not ashamed at all; I

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot > options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which > is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements > should be assigned. > I can only

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Faidon Liambotis
Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in > the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the > options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest, > safest and most easily justified seems to be "stop discus

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release. > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Simon Huggins
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:33AM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change > > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to > > release... > If you

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Clint Adams
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to > release... If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny with

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Ben Finney
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the > > other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority > > requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of > > any oth

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Simon Huggins
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in > the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of > the options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the > simplest, safest and most

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Andreas Barth
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]: > On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to > > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up > > of the other options on

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up > of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority > requirements were s

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2), > and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated > by further discussion by 109 votes. Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to si

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware > > considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the best > way to just "undo" this GR and go back to square one instead? It seems to me the s

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements > for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get: > > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware considering all the problems around this p

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Andreas Barth
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]: > [ difference between options 2 and 5] > It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the > furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect. Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where n

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote: > In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that > option x received over option y. > Option > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > === === === ===

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-28 Thread Andreas Barth
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]: > Dropping Option 1 because of Majority. > (0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) < 1 > Dropping Option 2 because of Majority. > (1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) < 3 > Dropping O

Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

2008-12-27 Thread devotee
Greetings, This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results. Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely Debian Project Secretary This email is just a convenience for the impatient. I remain, gentle folks, Your humble servant, De