Hi.
I'll admit that I've been rather out of the loop of late, but I do try
to at least research GRs and make as informed of a decision as I can.
I was unable to find any legal review of the proposed changes to the
constitution.
The idea of a project associated with a single non-profit for
fina
ity work to downstreams.
This message contains:
* Response to the orthogonality argument
* How do you get to choice 2
* What might happen if choice 2 passes.
Orthogonality
=
Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >> Choice
others.
Multiple people were either surprised that policy reads as it does
today, or that the policy editors couldn't get consensus to make this
change on their own.
I was prepared to have two versions of choice 1: one with no init script
RC, and the current version. But at least in the pe
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Oh, right. Okay. I suppose that makes sense; the nbd-client
Wouter> init script hasn't been touched since I wrote the nbd-client
Wouter> systemd unit, and so I can't really guarantee that it will
Wouter> work very well anymore.
> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz writes:
Bernd> On 2019-11-12 18:56, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> "Alexander E. Patrakov" writes:
>>
>>> I think that one choice is missing here. Could you please
>>> include something like this, just to see how many people are
>>> THAT radical?
> "Matthias" == Matthias Klumpp writes:
I'd like to understand how what you propose below differs from my choice
3.
This is more or less along the lines of what I meant to propose with
choice 3, and I'd like to understand what differences you see that
matter to you.
There's a reasonable pos
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> I think there are only two differences: [...]
Holger> there's a third, the title.
I really like Matthias's title.
I'd like to take a crack at folding Matthias's title
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Matthias Klumpp writes:
>> However, I think it may be useful to highlight in the vote text
>> somewhere that systemd is actually not just the init system, but
>> a modular collection of different tools designed to work well
>> togeth
I'm using the language of amendments and stuff even though I realize
this is not formally correct.
hi.
My current plan to move forward based on discussion here is:
* Update choice 1 to accept an amendment proposed by Martin:
Correct an ambiguous sentence to say:
> a package having a service
Ian, first, thanks for a really great and constructive proposal.
I'm assuming you plan to propose this as an amendment and get seconds.
There's one area where I'm hoping you can come up with different
wording, because at least for me, your current wording fails at being
excellent to each other.
I'd like to propose the following resolution.
Seconds are not required, but it would be valuable to get confirmation
that the three choices contained in this proposal are worth having on
the ballot.
So, rather than seconding the proposal it would be useful if people
would ack choices here they'd
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
>> Timeline:
Ian> Please can we have more time.
If you're worried about still fi
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> The patterns I am trying to address with this are things like:
Ian> * Vague RC bug reports against pieces of the non-systemd
Ian> ecosystem, which do not actually describe a particular bug, or
Ian> an approach acceptable to the submitter,
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> For example, suppose upstream ship a timer unit. A Debian
Ian> contributor wants to supply a patch to make the package use
Ian> cron. You might very well want to use cron even with systemd;
Ian> some people prefer cron's featureset. How
The secretary requested that I have each choice be self-contained.
So I'm folding the header into each choice.
The line of dashes separates each choice.
I formally propose these general resolution options.
Version 1385c4e4ba56da
Choice hartmans1: Affir
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> The secretary requested that I have each choice be
>> self-contained. So I'm folding the header into each choic
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> But as you pointed out, I'm happy to interprete this as using
Kurt> the 4.1.3 powers of the policy editors and release team, nor
Kurt> do I really see a difference between 4.1.3 and 4.1.5.
The big difference between 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 is that 4.
I am in fact going to accept Russ's amendment clarifying division of
responsibility.
I'm finding the amendment easy to accept, although I just need to update
my working copy and repost. I'm finding replying to Scott's original
message is taking a bit of wordsmithing.
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
>> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems
>> about
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
>> To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period
>> started November 16. So, we're talking about a minimum
>> discussion period expiring on November 3
Kurt, I'd like to accept Russ's amendment to choice hartmans1.
Attached please find a complete replacement for all three choices,
although only hartmans1 has changed.
Also, please find a diff in case that's easier for you.
Using powers under constitution 5.1 (8), I vary the minimum discussion
pe
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>> Sam Hartman writes:
>>> It's my intent today or tomorrow to accept the amendment and to
>>> update the discussion period to continue to expire on November
>>> 30.
Russ&g
Hi.
By this point we have a group of people who have consistently seconded
options that promote init diversity.
That is, we have a group of people who have gotten behind specific
options.
I'd like to ask especially those people whether choice hartmans1 should
be removed from the ballot. Within
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
Kurt> current interpretation is different. The page shows the
Kurt> discussion perriod starting at the 19th, which is when Ian's
Kurt> proposal got enough sponsors.
My unders
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> I think the title "Affirm Init Diversity" for hartmans1 is
Ian> rather misleading. hartmans1 seems to legitimise uncontrolled
Ian> adoption of non-daemon-startup systemd features; in this sense
Ian> it is weaker even than my compromise prop
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
>> Would you like to propose a title you believe is more accurate?
Ian> It is difficult for me to do that without being tendentious
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> I think the most important difference between your proposal and
Ian> Dmitry's is that your proposal, as I say, (and I think unlike
Ian> Dmitry's):
Ian> legitimise[s] uncontrolled adoption of non-daemon-startup
Ian> systemd features
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > I've
>> currently put the title to "Packages should support >
>> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
>>
>> Dmitr
Tl;DR: I think this option is strictly better than the current
hartmans1. If you disagree please let me know. Especially if you want
to see the current hartmans1 on the ballot let me know.
I'd like to replace hartmans1 with this option.
I've attempted to revise choice hartmans1 along the lines
> "David" == David Prévot writes:
David> Hi, Will there be a NOTA (none of the above) option on the
David> ballot, or should one propose it formally? Not being
David> satisfied by any of the proposed option may not mean one
David> wants FD (further discussion) about it.
There
>>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
gregor> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
gregor> […]
>> Developers may perform non-maintainer uploads to fix th
>>>>> "David" == David Prévot writes:
David> Le 22/11/2019 à 03:01, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> I think it is important to emphasize that these bugs can be NMUed
>> in this choice.
David> By doing that, this choice de facto overrides the c
> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
gregor> Thanks for the clarification.
I am going to accept Holger's proposed changes and post this as an
accepted amendment to Proposal A.
>> I'd appreciate help in achieving these goals without undermining
>> the text in debref.
grego
Hi.
You provided a diff to the text on the website, which hadn't been
updated with choice hartmans1A.
Attached is the patch I actually applied, which I believe is consistent
with the spirit of your changes.
diff --git a/init-system-gr b/init-system-gr
index dade7d0..f2ee7f2 100644
--- a/init-syst
Dear Secretary:
Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the following
amended text; I accept this amendment.
I continue to adjust the discussion period to end November 30.
Based on Holger's recommendation I adjusted the title of the choice.
If you prefer the title you have now
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam> Dear Secretary:
Sam> Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the
Sam> following amended text; I accept this amendment.
Sigh, and introduced a typo in the title:
Sam> Cho
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam> Dear Secretary:
There's another typo in my replacement text for proposal A.
Sam> support for running without systemd is available. It is a
Sam> important bug (although not a serious one) when package
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was
Kurt> part of the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4
Kurt> of the 5 options have 2 titles, one that's under my control,
Kurt> followed by the text that's not, that a
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> [change removing regret about having another GR]
>>
>> > Unless anyone object
Question at the end about length of voting period.
Hi.
Things seem to be calming down here.
Assuming no changes, I think having discussion end on November 30 is
fine.
The sorts of changes that might complicate that include: a significant
new issue coming up, or a new proposal coming up that seem
> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini writes:
Enrico> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
>> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution
>> prior to it being subject to a plebiscite
I'm definitely fine with Kurt's revision to the title of Proposal A
given the similar change to proposal E and Ian's comments.
If I'm permitted to make the following change under A.1(6) (that is,
permitted to make the following change without resetting the clock) I
propose to make the following
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> So I did an s/Init system diversity/multiple init
Kurt> systems/. The text in B and C doesn't match exactly, since B
Kurt> and C still have "Using its power under Constitution section
Kurt> 4.1 (5), ".
It is intentional that the text in
> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri writes:
Marco> lu...@debian.org wrote:
>> In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read
>> proposals in a more sensible order, I think they should be
>> re-ordered as:
Marco> I agree.
I don't object to an ordering change.
I do note
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Martin Michlmayr writes ("Typo in proposal B"):
>> "It is important that the project support the efforts"
>>
>> s/support/supports/?
>>
>> (I know British and American English don't agree whether an
>> organization is singular
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Hi, I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before
Ansgar> calling for a vote. Michael Biebl said he is looking into
Ansgar> drafting an alternative, but has been too busy with work in
Ansgar> the last few days. He would therefor
> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather
Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the
Simon> discussion period, I think that having something proposed by
Simon> the systemd maintainers on the ballot wi
> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes:
Simon> Hi,
Simon> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[regarding declarative facilities]
>> I have heard more than one person say that they are unhappy that
>> the current situation has been blocking specifically th
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam, I think you misunderstood Simon's concern. He's not
Russ> looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly
Russ> with sysvinit. He's looking for guidance for packages that
Russ> don't work properly with *systemd* (the inv
Ian, I find that I'm not able to answer Simon's question with regard to
Proposal D.
Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
against systemd, but when so built, it cannot run without systemd
Hi.
I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a
criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical
differences I a
>>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
gregor> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with
>> proposal C. The text is obviously very different, but I&#
> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
Bdale> Guillem Jover writes:
>> I think the current GR is incorrectly framing the problem at
>> hand, as if it was just an init system selection.
Bdale> This resonates with me, but...
>> I'm thus proposing the following:
Bdale> I f
First, if it does not reset the minimum discussion period, I'd like to
withdraw proposal C.
I think the overlap between Proposal C and F is significant and we have
not identified differences that appear to be important to our community.
I don't plan to make aCFV before Tuesday. Whether even that
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> Anyway, I'm not sure what the "I'd like" means. Is that just
Kurt> an intention to do it, or did you do it?
I withdraw Proposal C.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:15:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>>
Kurt> Anyway, I'm not sure what the "I
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Could you provide some more information about what your
Russ> concern is here? libsystemd-dev depends only on libsystemd0,
Russ> which has a pretty tiny list of dependencies and shouldn't
Russ> require that systemd be running so far as I
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> It seems to me that if improvements to G (say) become available
Ian> and are acceptable to the proposer, they should be on the
Ian> ballot, probably instead of the existing G. Because of
Ian> ambiguity in the constitution (sorry) it is not
FYI, see
https://hartmans.livejournal.com/99642.html
for my attempt at a voting guide on the proposals currently on the
ballot.
> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
Bdale> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> I'm thinking about renaming F to just "Focus on systemd", to make
>> it shorter. I'm not sure how devotee is going to like wrapping
>> long lines.
Bdale> Not sure I "get a vote" on this, but that would work
> "Uoti" == Uoti Urpala writes:
Uoti> IMO encouragement for supporting alternative systems could be
Uoti> reasonable, but only for actual new innovation; maintainers
Uoti> should be explicitly permitted to remove any existing sysvinit
Uoti> scripts and refuse addition of simi
> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
Thomas> Sam,
Thomas> Is this a real life case (if so, please name the
Thomas> package...), or just a pure fictional one, just because you
Thomas> love debating?
Thomas> Cheers,
So, first of all, note that this question has already be
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Adam Borowski writes:
>> * dependencies on "systemd | other" rather than "other |
>> systemd"; this is a no-op on a systemd system (installed by
>> debootstrap before any non-base packages) but causes apt to force
>> an init+rc switch
> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
Guillem> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be
Guillem> evaluated independently, and no magic decision tree will
Guillem> ever fix trying to work things out with other people, in
Guillem> good faith, and trying to find s
people here who would value Debian deciding not to support
sysvinit.
* We respect both these views, and deciding among them is one potential
outcome of the current GR process.
I don't think it was your intention to escalate the situation, but that
seems to be happening, and I'd ask you to
The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
prepare a ballot and start the vote.
As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting period by a week.
I think we've gotten to a point where the existing proposals
It was pointed out to me off-list that the constitution says that in
calling for a vote I am supposed to say what I think the options are.
That feels kind of presumptuous given the work the secretary has done.
Kurt and I discussed off list much earlier and he doesn't need me to say
what I think t
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> 2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems
Ian> GR is overturned. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
This was not a DPL decision.
This was a decision of an author of a proposal on the ballot.
So I don't think this is a decision that can be
I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
that the vote is called to early.
They can vote FD above other options.
And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.
I don't know if the text should be in the ballot.
I did ask someone who has not been in this discussion to review the
ballot without the text.
They are not a DD.
But they found just the choice titles entirely mystifying.
But it would be really long with all the text.
> "Svante" == Svante Signell writes:
Svante> Jonathan, FYI: From a mail From Uoti Urpala:
Svante> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/12/msg00054.html
That mail had unfortunate tone and several people replied to the thread
indicating that the approach taken was not appropriat
> "Svante" == Svante Signell writes:
Svante> Nevertheless being Swedish I don't find any offensive tone
Svante> in my wording, please tell me where I failed! (
I don't know I'd say failed.
Looking back, I definitely think this is a language disconnect and
perhaps nothing more.
>"be
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"): > > So yes, for me a
>> combination of options G and D would
> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes:
Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (
The CFV was not pos
I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
proposal weakens option G alone.
[1]:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
This puts us into a complicated situation.
* If G+D had been proposed and sponsored before the CFV, it's
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
>
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Do I assume correctly, therefore, that you now agree that
Matthew> G+D should be on the ballot?
I'm not going to stand in the way.
I think everything I wrote in my message is still true, including that I
think the secretary is in a bet
TL;DR: Treating people with respect is hard and very contextual.
Choosing to change how you talk about something to make people more
comfortable doesn't always mean you were obligated to make that change.
Sometimes you're just promoting connection.
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Sc
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> TLDR: Words have meanings and I find it deeply offensive when
Scott> one group tries to hijack them for their own ends. This
Scott> entire discussion makes me less comfortable with
Scott> participating in Debian.
I agree that happen
f the Code of Conduct.
Debating whether people get to have preferred pronouns or whether things
like singular they are appropriate in the English we use in Debian is
off-topic for Debian discussion fora.
To the extent that such debates were useful, we've already had them many
times.
Sam Hartman
Debian Project Leader
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam> In adopting the Diversity Statement and the Code of Conduct
Sam> we've committed to welcoming people to the project regardless
Sam> of how they identify the project.
Sigh.
This should have been regardless of how they identify themselves.
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> I think you reinforce my original point. In this case, the
Scott> 'other side' isn't the proposer of the option, it's me.
Scott> What I'm hearing is that the CoC isn't for people like me
Scott> because you are completely dismissiv
The timeline seems off by a year, but otherwise lgtm.
As I mentioned on -private, I'm going on vacation 2020-02-21 through
2020-02-28.
I will make a decision about whether I'm going to run again on that
vacation and let folks know before the nomination period starts.
--Sam
TL;DR: Overall, being DPL has been incredibly rewarding. I have
enjoyed working with you all, and have enjoyed the opportunity to
contribute to the Debian Project. I hope to be DPL again some year,
but 2020 is the wrong year for me and for the project. So I will not
nominate myself this year, b
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Gupta writes:
Brian>On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Sam HartmanBrian>Sam,
Thank you for your work as DPL. I just want to add
Brian> one thought about your takeaway that maybe the project isn't
Brian> ready
I'm concerned that by sending my longish message about why I am not
running, I may have started a trend that I do not value.
Typically the nomination messages are fairly short.
I appreciate Jonathan's thoughtful message, but you don't need to write
something that long at this stage, and shouldn't
Dear Brian:
I've just read your platform.
For reasons that are slightly different than the ones you state, I tend
to agree that setting up foundations sounds like a good idea.
And I think you have a significant chunk of the background to lead that
effort.
As an individual (read after my DPL te
TL;DR: I think Debian probably wants a foundation for legal protection.
I think doing this as a DPL platform is all sorts of wrong.
I'm speaking as an individual, although my thoughts are influenced by my
time as DPL.
Hi.
I've generally been coming to the conclusion that we probably need to
ha
Speaking as an individual.
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter writes:
Jonathan> On 2020/03/19 12:39, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>
>>> My honest answer? Yes, it would be nice if all the delegates
>>> could be project members
> "Teemu" == Teemu Hukkanen writes:
Teemu> Would you, in a situation like this, commit to providing the
Teemu> information before becoming DPL in order to avoid a conflict
Teemu> of interest?
What is the conflict of interest you see here?
I'm sure people unfamiliar with this situation are horribly confused by
this point.
As DPL, I think I have a duty to try and give the electorate enough
information to evaluate situations like this while retaining privacy and
neutrality.
I'm going to try and do so.
My understanding is that in e
Hi.
I think there is a lack of precision in the text of your GR that I find
highly problematic.
I suspect it will be fairly easy for you to correct this and possibly
even gain my support, so I'd ask you to look for ways to do so.
You say that the WHO has declared Covid-19 to be a pandemic, and ha
[I hope someone on the DebConf team side is willing to summarize the
results of this discussion to debian-vote]
> "Stefano" == Stefano Rivera writes:
Stefano> Hi Sam (2020.05.22_14:51:42_+)
>> The interesting thing is what the WHO says about travel and
>> minimizing internat
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog writes:
Raphael> With that said, there could be many questions to be asked
Raphael> but I will concentrate on three:
Raphael> 1/ Why have you all given up on the idea to lead Debian? It
Raphael> seems to me that you are happy with the DPL bein
Adam, I think a more respectful way of including trans members of our
community would be to count them as the gender they identify with
(assuming you know).
You'll still end up with a category for nonbinary of course.
You asked if DDs would support the DPL hiring people.
So I answer as an DD.
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog writes:
Raphael> * it means that the DPL can organize the administrative
Raphael> work so that it ends up on the shoulders of paid staff, and
Raphael> the DPL can take a mo
> "Gunnar" == Gunnar Wolf writes:
Gunnar> In my case, fortunately my livelihood is guaranteed, and
Gunnar> depending on many things, I will have more or less time
Gunnar> available for the projects in Debian I most care
Gunnar> about... Adding money offers to the mix won't ch
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> This is a deep structural problem that we're going to struggle
Russ> to solve with modest changes such as increased efficiency to
Russ> try to make our scaling more sublinear, or increased
Russ> recruitment (of still primarily unpaid vol
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> Text of GR
Steve> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard
Steve> Stallman's readmission to the FSF seen at
Steve>
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md.
St
I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step
down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this
point.
It's been an ongoing issue.
I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged
discussion, and I think that there is significant b
1 - 100 of 371 matches
Mail list logo
