situations as an important evaluation
>> criteria.
Stefano> Agreed.
Stefano> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:12:13PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> For myself I do not like the effects of option 1.
[only 3 people on the TC]
Stefano> Note that it has been propose
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> 6. Whenever it becomes the case that (i) the most senior
Ian> member has been on the committee for at least 6 years; and (ii)
Ian> it has been at least 4 months since it happened that the
Ian> at-that-time most senior member left the commi
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the
Stefano> first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above
Stefano> (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation
Stefano> among them)
Stefano
===
The Constitution is amended as follows:
---
--- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100
+++ constitution.2-R.txt2014-1
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> There's another alternative to using the CTTE, and my
Russ> understanding is that this was generally the method used prior
Russ> to the existence of the CTTE, but I'm not sure it's really any
Russ> better.
Russ> There are specific te
> "Matthias" == Matthias Urlichs writes:
Matthias> Hi, matt...@bendel.debian.org:
>> I think the TC is a useful last resort where other ways of
>> resolving technical disagreements have failed. Perhaps we should
>> consider having a non-binding mediation group for developers t
> "Jakub" == Jakub Wilk writes:
Jakub> * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-12-16, 16:55:
>>> It would also be nice that already suggested what the wording of
>>> the options should be.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> 1) replace the two oldest members every year 2) replace the two
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Kurt> One of the problems, and I consider that to be the most
Kurt> important one, is about the stratigic vote that you can do.
Kurt> For example, condiser that there ar
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves to propose ballot options
that are statement-of-the-day-like ballot options not requiring a
super-majority when do
Restated to fix comments received.
For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous
amendment.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves
Fixed, I hope; thanks.
Hi. It's not clear that my amendment with a minimal change has quite
enough support to be on the ballot.
would people be comfortable waiting a day or two more to see if we get
any more seconds and if not, then just going forward with the one ballot
option?
--Sam
See https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2015/09/msg00016.html
for the message to second if you choose to do that.
Rationale copied below.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> I really wish Andreas at least fixed the text of his
Kurt> resolution, I really don't want to hold a vote on a text
Kurt> that's not clear.
So, you're hoping he would state things in terms of a diff or something
a lot closer to a diff?
Basical
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
>> Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's
>> still a non-binding resolution, or something.
Ian> In these cases, my proposal produces `FD'.
>> Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the
>> constitution" se
> "Andreas" == Andreas Barth writes:
Andreas> Hi Kurt, sorry for answering so late, but I had a "great"
Andreas> combination of being sick and too much work.
Andreas> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150921 08:34]:
>> I would also really like to see such text replaced by a dif
Hi.
I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for seconds
on the amendment I made to that resolution as its own resolution.
Obviously I'm proposing the option I most favor.
If others want to propose the original version a
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
>> Since the previous resolution appears
Hi.
We still need one more second.
--Sam
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
Kurt> I would like to remind you that we
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam> Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
Sam> Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for
Sam> seconds on the amendment I made to that resolution as its own
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 03:44:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:58:56AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > It seems devotee is currently not working properly. Some
>> people > have received an error message, I've ma
We seem to have reached the end of the nominations period with no Debian
developers stepping forward to nominate themselves. As has been
discussed, the nomination in
is not
valid because the person nominating themselves is not a developer.
In fairness, I'd recommend that the nominations period b
How much of the DPL's financial role can be delegated?
I understand that for example absent instructions otherwise the DPL is
our expendature approval point for SPI (and presumably the other trusted
organizations).
Would the governing procedures/bilaws/whatever of our trusted
organizations permit
I nominate myself to stand as a candidate for DPL in the 2019 DPL
elections.
I've been pondering this over the last week and dealing with things like
getting authorization from my employer.
I've been struggling to find the right place to help Debian work better
together and to help people solve p
ons of how much time DPL
takes.
>>>>> "Mattia" == Mattia Rizzolo writes:
Mattia> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:38:52AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I've been pondering this over the last week and dealing with
>> things like getting authorizati
Hi.
I had a previously scheduled trip and will be away from later this
morning until Sunday.
I have not finished my platform, so it will be Sunday evening before I
get a chance to send it to Kurt for publication.
That should end up with things being delayed no more than a day or two.
>>>>> "Mattia" == Mattia Rizzolo writes:
Mattia> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:38:52AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I've been pondering this over the last week and dealing with
>> things like getting authorization from my employer.
>>>>> "Andrey" == Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
Andrey> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 06:13:49PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I am assuming that the DPL role will take 15 hours a week
Andrey> For all 52 weeks? This sounds harsh.
I assure you that I c
> "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella writes:
A lot of this is in my platform but I'm answering here for clarity.
Jose> * As a DPL, what steps would you take (if any) towards
Jose> reducing the workload and breadth of activities the DPL is
Jose> expected to engage in?
I think every D
> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille writes:
Andreas> Hi to all brave candidates, thanks to you all to volunteer
Andreas> for the DPL job. I wish you all good luck for the
Andreas> elections and the future DPL my best wishes.
Andreas> Recently I've read the article "Winding down my
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> Note that if you prefer not to frame this in the context of
Lucas> SWOT analysis, you can also answer the following four
Lucas> questions, which should result in basically the same
Lucas> information:
Thanks for giving me this option.
> "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella writes:
Jose> If DPL Team/Committee worked, and delegations start to feel
Jose> more permanent (delegated functions make sense, terms are
Jose> long) then why wouldn't a few of those delegates become Debian
Jose> Leadership Team members alongsi
Let me start by saying that I think it would be valuable to find ways
to get more people paid to work on Debian; I was excited to see that in
your platform.
I'm nervous because of our past experience in this area.
I'm really hoping you have answers though because I agree with you that
lack of
I'm finding it really hard to frame answers usefully in terms of the
questions you ask (and even more difficult with the alternative
reframings proposed)
So I'll talk for a bit about universal, and I'm sorry, but that's what
you'll get at least until you ask for clarification.
I think I'm more i
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> But I was following up specifically to Sam's point that
Stefano> "there would be two classes of developers and that
Stefano> volunteers would be frustrated/disappointed they were not
Stefano> getting paid" --- with respect to
My rebuttal section will basically be titled "Roping them in and working
with them," and will I think entirely answer your questions.
I'd prefer to take the time to write something polished and include it
in my platform.
--Sam
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Hi, a lot of communication in Debian happens over IRC.
Ansgar> However IRC is not as nice to use as newer alternatives,
Ansgar> creating a barrier for newer contributors.
Ansgar> Do you think Debian should be more active to establish
>* Conflict of interest: I'm happy to see that your and Joerg's
>employers would support your DPL activities. However, I've no idea who
>they are or what they want from Debian. Maybe they use Debian and
>want to give back with no strings attached, but I could definitely see
>a situation where a
> "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella writes:
Jose> The question is _what_ would be up for discussion, given it's
Jose> only a year.
In the discussions here, three items have come up that resonate with me
significantly:
1) Can we recommend/require dh > 9?
2) Do we want to more strongly
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Hi *, "More of a comment than a question..."
>> I am disappointed when people leave bitter and disheartened.
Anthony> That's still kind-of better than if they're bitter and
Anthony> disheartened, but won't go away though!
Yeah.
I
I'm really excited to work with the existing teams.
I'm a big believer in helping people grow--in happiness,
empowerment and skills.
For me that will start by
reaching out and understanding how they work with the DPL. Some of that
is on the wiki, but I suspect some of that I'd need to learn from
> "Laura" == Laura Arjona Reina writes:
Laura> I'm talking there about the DPL candidates who didn't (or
Laura> won't) get elected.
Laura> Yes, they are not usually part of the teams we are
Laura> discussing. And that feels strange for me. Because many of
Laura> the ideas
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away"
>> and more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the
>> benefit of it being one way,
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> I respectfully disagree. While it's not DPL's
Stefano> responsibility to implement (and maybe even drive) any
Stefano> specific technical/workflow change in the project, knowing
Stefano> what the DPL *thinks* about matters li
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Hi all, One thing that Debian has historically been good at,
Wouter> is to produce ports for various architectures. However,
Wouter> we're not the most widely ported; Gentoo, for instance, has
Wouter> been ported to Interix and mac
I think I've covered my approaches to communication fairly well in my
platform and in previous messages already.
I agree with you that fixer teams/delegations--targeted agreements
between the project and a group of people working on a task--can be
valuable tools. I also agree that the Bits from t
Hi. I've been struggling with this question for the reasons I outlined
in my response to Zac.
As I mentioned, I am not comfortable helping people choose the DPL based
on their personal beliefs outside of the scope of what the DPL is
actually responsible for.
I think asking what problems the DPL see
When people hear I'm from Debian, this is the second most common
question I get.
The first is about systemd and gives me a great opportunity to talk
about how Debian works and about how we're a community facing tough
challenges together.
Here's the answer I give on this issue for Debian of today
> "Chris" == Chris Lamb writes:
Chris> I'd be very interested if you and the other candidates could
Chris> elaborate on their thoughts in this approximate area.
Chris> As a bit of background, I've actually written this reply
Chris> twice before (or, admittedly ones somewhat s
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> Hello,
Sean> On Wed 03 Apr 2019 at 12:51PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Bikeshedding"):
>>> Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git on
>>> salsa and every Debian Developer with upload r
The last two weeks have been exhilarating. I've had the privilege to
participate in a discussion with you all (candidates and voters alike)
about the future of Debian and where we'd like to take the project.
I'm pleased to see that Debian is the vibrant, live community I've known
it to be.
For
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> It was a little worrying that we passed the first nomination
Russ> period without anyone volunteering to run for Debian Project
Russ> Leader, so it has been both relieving and quite exhilarating
Russ> that such a strong set of candidates
This is a draft GR. I hope to be at a point where I could formally
propose a GR in a week, assuming discussion converges that fast.
At this point, the question is whether the choices that need to be on
the ballot are represented in this draft GR.
I did not obtain a review of this version from s
Thanks for helping; resolving these sort of ambiguities are really
appreciated.
>>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Altern
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Thu, Nov 07Holger> Finally, I don't think it's a good idea
to rush this to a
Holger> vote in 7 days. I'm tempted to mail d-d-a to make people who
Holger> are not regularily read -vote aware of this
Holger> discussion. (There
> "Anand" == Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anand> I, personally, suspect that the unfriendliness of Debian is
Anand> behind a lot of requests for smaller mailing lists seen by
Anand> listmaster these days. A lot of people don't bother to use
Anand> the main mailing l
I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find
it a less powerful and m
> "Graham" == Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Graham> If you don't feel like you can vote for any of the given
Graham> choices, why did you not participate in the discussions
Graham> prior to the vote? Why did you not propose something that
Graham> you were comfortabl
> "Michael" == Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> This last one could be considered on-topic for -vote in
Michael> the context of this unholy GR, but I rather think it's
Michael> abuse of it, as we have a release team for this kind of
Michael> issue.
It is no
> "Eduard" == Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eduard> #include * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004,
Eduard> 07:16:04PM]:
>> You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's
>> fundamental to the project structure, and written into the
>> constituti
1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The
I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to
decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to
abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be
distinct from the pro
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> [Note: debian shouldn't wait for this group, on any pressing
Raul> issues. For the moment, we probably want to avoid combining
Raul> amendment and final votes in the same voting message, but
Raul> what we've got is bas
It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since
April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around
for at least a year from voting or is this a bug?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 03:41:18 +
From: [EMAIL PROTE
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:24:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson
Ben> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:45:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: >
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:31:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson
>> wrote: > > > > >
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> As was I..
Jason> If this was anything but debian this would void the results
Jason> of the election.
We could choose to do that too. However, it seems kind of silly.
We'd have to spend another three weeks voting,
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending
Branden> automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS
Branden> or any other subject).
Branden> If he does not comply within 24 hours of rat
[Hopefully we can finish this discussion quickly or move to personal mail. The
issue at hand no longer matters.
]
> "Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> By the same argument i should be able to opt out of
Glenn> recieving mail from the bug tracking system about
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Stop being stupid, our goal is to provide a good OS for
Raphael> all our users, this does include having *good* localized
Raphael> content whereever it's possible. For this the maintainer
Raphael> may want to
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raphael> écrivait:
>> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to
>> be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever
>> re
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only
Peter> for developers approved by the project?
It's unclear to me whether it says or does not say this.
> "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater writes:
Andrew> Conversely, for screen magnification at, say 400%, fully
Andrew> justified text or text filling a monitor space is
Andrew> undesirable and much harder to read. For this, text that is
Andrew> left justified, ragged right and poss
> "Aigars" == Aigars Mahinovs writes:
Aigars> Another, simpler, alternative would be to vote on the Debian
Aigars> project endorsing
Aigars> https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition
Aigars> It basically translates the four freedoms into AI freedoms
Aigars> and
I'm not sure if this is too late. The mail to debian-devel-announce was
kind of late, and I hope there is still some discussion time left.
It is late enough that I am immediately seeking seconds for the
following proposal.
I am also open to wordsmithing if we have time.
If we decide to take more
> "Gunnar" == Gunnar Wolf writes:
Gunnar> M. Zhou dijo [Mon, May 05, 2025 at 03:41:14PM -0400]:
>> The issue is also discussed here:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/1019028/
>>
>> A better wording goes: s/open source license/DFSG-compatible
>> license/g
>>
>> It
> "M" == M Zhou writes:
===
M> Proposal A: "AI models released under open source license without
M> original training data or program" are not seen as
M> DFSG-compliant.
M>
I think many of us modify machine learning models on a regular basis.
And I think when we make those modifications, we do not go back to
original training data, but instead, we modify the model weights.
I suspect I am not the only one who uses rspamd and who uses both the
Bayesian classifier an
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
Bill> Without the original training data, we have no way to know
Bill> what it is "inside" the model. The model could generate
Bill> backdoors and non-free copyrighted material or even more
Bill> harmful content.
And yet we have accepted x8
>>>>> "Ansgar" == Ansgar 🙀 writes:
Ansgar> Hi,
Ansgar> On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 14:27 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> If I wanted to package up my classifier state and distribute it
>> under a free software license, I think it should be DFS
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 02:13:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> However, I am very leery about extending that exception to cases
>> where people are intentionally creating that situation by
>> deleting the input data on purpo
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> Thanks for this proposal, Aigars. How would you compare it
Stefano> with Sam's proposal? As I can see it the general idea
Stefano> behind both proposals is quite similar, even though the
Stefano> wording is different. The mai
> "Aigars" == Aigars Mahinovs writes:
Aigars> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
Aigars> ** Proposal Text **
Aigars> Choice 3: Training data for training of AI models is not to
Aigars> be considered "source code" in the context of DFSG. Instead
Aigars> the r
> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes:
firmware blob
Simon> for a future SoC CPU that includes camera functionality, it
Simon> seems possible that would make use of some LLM model to have
Simon> better face recognition for example.
Do you perhaps mean model or machine learning mode
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> Either way, having a single option would certainly be
Stefano> better than having two, in terms of reaching the needed
Stefano> quorum for an alternative option to be on the
Stefano> ballot. (Assuming you two are fine with "m
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> What I strongly suspect would happen, if proposal A wins
Stefano> (which I also consider quite likely) is that Debian
Stefano> maintainers of free software products that use trained ML
Stefano> models that lack DFSG-free trai
> "Clint" == Clint Adams writes:
>> Maybe the answer is that they're just too useful to the
>> distribution to not package regardless of our opinions about
>> whether they're free software. User experience and free software
>> principles *are* often in tension and it's fine f
Start of forwarded message
From: Sam Hartman
To: "M. Zhou"
Subject: Re: withdrawing Proposal A -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial
Intelligence (AI) Models
Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 13:41:58 -0600
I formally withdrow my option as well.
301 - 387 of 387 matches
Mail list logo
