* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
> That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
> or you have
> 'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free crap'
> Not both.
> Which i
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
>
> > That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
> > 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
> > or you have
> > 'the release team downgrades these bugs and in
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:39:04PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> > If we get closer to the free side, and provide a 100% free main like we
> > used to,
>
> When precisely was that?
Yeah, it's funny. We never did. Let us say, like we used to pro
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > >
> > > It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
> > > network
> > > card is using DMA to send away your private data in unaccounted frames.
> >
> > O
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion.
>
> Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attacks, but I
> choose to read anyway out of responsibility.
If you're sick
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:14:30PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
> > > > network
> > > > card is
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> authoritative.
>
> That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
>
> > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Y
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >
> > It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
> > network
> > card is using DMA to send away your private data in unaccounted frames.
>
> Of course you can. Adding paranoid fantasies to the debate does
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:14:30PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It often can, though. You can't really tell
Le Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
>
> Instead of having a long, useless discussion on what "Further discussion"
> means, would it be possible to remove that option?
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for any interpretation of what "Further
> Discussion" woul
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> > authoritative.
> >
> > That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
> >
> > I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
>
> I'm hereby proposing the following genera
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:24:56PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion.
> >
> > Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attac
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>
> Let me observe that the fact that "several
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Or the vote that I suspect would be a reasonably common one if the vote
> allowed it:
> "I don't want firmware in main, but I want the Release Team to have the
> freedom to allow it for Lenny".
As far as the lenny release is concerned, how is t
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
>
>> That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
>> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
>> or you have
>> 'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
> >
> > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes
> >ii D
- "Robert Millan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
> rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >>ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
> >
> > Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are
> > empowered, by delegation, to decide upon transitions and
> > "lenny-ignore
- "Bas Wijnen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what's the problem? We want to provide a 100% free software
> distribution. Appearantly we currently can't do that. We're far on the
> way, but not there yet. We may have thought we were there, but we were
> wrong.
>
> So indeed, people curre
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
> have _all_ the possible courses of
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> >>ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
>> >
>> > Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are
>> > empowered, by delegati
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
>> >
>> > i Do we require source f
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:24 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> The social contract says that the debian system and all its
> components will be 100% free, free as determined by the dfsg.
All its components include the unstable suite as well. Why are you
focusing on the release
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
>> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
>> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of you.)
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily
> coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population.
>
> Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a
> myriad of other problems that Manoj has
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
> used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
> violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as
> not blocking the release. [...]
It seems tha
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
> threads unreadable anyway.
>
> (If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
> as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of y
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
>> without source code just because a few delegates think we should.
>
> So another delegate (the secretary) s
Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>> So do I. If the project grants them an exception to release Lenny (like we
>> did for Sarge and Etch), I'll support that too.
> To start the same bullshit again for the next release, a few days before
> the release?
This is exa
On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
>>> So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
>>> without source code just because a few delegat
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed; but
> > it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman –
> > unless he is leading a double life chasing evil aliens at night, but
> > that wo
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The secretary isn't a delegate. The secretary has special powers
>> explicitly listed in the Constitution that are not available to the DPL
>> or to a delegate and a selection process mandat
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
>> threads unreadable anyway.
>>
>> (If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
>> as
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>> It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
>>> but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
>>> – unless he is leading a double li
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 15:01 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian system
> (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free. Not just things in
> the Debian system that run on a host CPU (what is that, anyway) are
> free.
I
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
> >> threads unreadable anyway.
> >>
> >
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:24:56PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion.
> > Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attacks,
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
> > system (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free. Not just
> > things in the Debian system that run on a ho
Given that this is supposed to be the discussion period, I'd like to share
my standpoint regarding one option.
Andreas Barth wrote:
> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> | case-by-case-decis
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to
> different standards of freedom for its recipients. The properties
> “not code that is run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to
> be irrelevant to the argument.
>
> Can you re-write t
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
> > > system (which includes image .debs) should be
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:29:35PM +, Frans Pop wrote:
> We've already had two releases where this was an issue and in both cases
> it was decided by a GR. Why should the current release team think they
> could handle it differently?
Maybe because in http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
> >
> > The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak
> > about soft
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
> really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the
> subject prior to every release.
I completely agree with that.
> [0] http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lenny-ignore
>
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
> > >
> > > Th
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
> decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
> would leave the decision with the previous decision-making body, in this
> case the re
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release
>> team decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further
>> discussion would leave the decision with the prev
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> > That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the
> > DFSG, so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess
> > of terms. I would agree that could be a good motiva
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component
> is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is
> absolutely no doubt about that. But I'm honnestly not sure what
> "programs" or "software" mean, and in §2
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
> withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
> hand. No one els
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:54:25PM +, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component
> > is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is
> > absolutely no doubt about that. Bu
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:51:54AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>
> Is now a good time to propose such a GR?
I really do not think so. As you see, it creates discordance in the Project,
kills the fun, sinks energy, makes people asking for each other's heads and
starts a process that has many dead
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:36:32PM +, Frans Pop wrote:
> My very strong opinion is that it is part of the job of being a release
> manager to *actively* bring things that can be expected to be important
> or controversial to project members to their attention and, if needed,
> discuss such t
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> The bug reporters see the tags, [...]
Not true by default, only if they subscribe to the BR.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> [SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
> within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
> the DFSG.
>
> In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
> of "component", "soft
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a s
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >> First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
>> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
>> withdraw them, if they think the scope is
> Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored,
No, you are not being censored.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:27:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!)
> Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long
> before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be
> ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all t
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
> > decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
> > would leave the decision w
63 matches
Mail list logo
