Resolutions concerning dunc-tank
Ian Jackson
Hash: SHA1
I hereby propose each of the three draft General Resolutions below.
(Each resolution text is between cut marks like these: -8<- ->8-).
I would like to request that:
* The Project Leader reduces the minimum discussion period
and the voting period to one week each;
* The Secretary puts all three of these onto a single ballot;
* Developers who want this issue put to a vote second all three
of these resolutions, so that we have a good chance of a
clear and coherent outcome.
Note that I do not intend to accept any amendments and I intend to
call for a vote as soon as the minimum discussion period has elapsed.
We have discussed this extensively on debian-private. Thanks to Russ
Allbery for his comments on the third draft.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I think anyone who replies to this
mail in the manner specified by the Secretary in his recent
announcement, quoting this paragraph with approval and saying
`seconded' or `sponsored', should be taken to intend to sponsor all
three resolution texts exactly as I have proposed them here.
First resolution `We disapprove of dunc-tank':
-8<-
BACKGROUND
1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested
funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during the
forthcoming release.
2. Following informal opposition during internal discussions, Anthony
Towns has started soliciting, in a private capacity, donations for
a non-Debian-controlled fund for this purpose.
OPINIONS OF THE DEBIAN DEVELOPERS
3. Firstly, we would like to thank the Release Managers and the Leader
for their efforts. We have no disagreement with the Release
Managers.
4. However, we, are of the opinion that (effectively) paying the
Release Managers for their core Debian work devalues the work of
other volunteers and is harmful to the project.
DECISIONS AND REQUESTS
5. Let it be known that Anthony Towns's plan does not have the support
of the Debian Project, and that he is not authorised by Debian to
take donations for this purpose.
6. The Project requests that the Release Managers should not accept
any funding for their core Debian activities without the consent of
the Project.
7. The Project requests that potential donors do not give to the fund,
described in paragraph (2) above, set up by Anthony Towns.
8. For the avoidance of any doubt, any decisions by the DPL or
Delegates in pursuit of the plan described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) above are overruled with immediate effect.
9. Everyone is requested to interpret this resolution, and make any
further decisions, as are necessary to give full effect to our
wishes.
->8-
Second resolution `We approve of dunc-tank':
-8<-
BACKGROUND
1. Anthony Towns, the current Debian Project Leader, has suggested
funding the Debian Release Managers' living expenses during the
forthcoming release, as an experiment.
2. Following internal discussions, Anthony Towns has started
soliciting, in a private capacity, donations for a
non-Debian-controlled fund for this purpose.
OPINIONS OF THE DEBIAN DEVELOPERS
3. Firstly, we would like to thank the Release Managers and the Leader
for their efforts.
4. The Project broadly approves of the experimental plan.
DECISIONS AND REQUESTS
5. Let it be known that Anthony Towns's experiment has the support of
the Debian Project.
6. The Release Managers and Donors are requested to cooperate with the
experiment as seems reasonable and appropriate to them.
7. The Project requests that after the release, the experiment will be
evaluated by project and community, and that the Leader will
formally report. If it is thought broadly successful, processes of
this nature should be established fully as an activity of the
Debian Project.
->8-
Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
-8<-
1. The Developers note the existence and activities
of the dunc-tanc project.
2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
address dunc-tank in a General Resolution.
->8-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRRT8a8MWjroj9a3bAQKUFAP/UXGOzwZXKKdGSrrLgFvnAWzrvsXHT5XK
Yulf85pWnn7ADFI8aBY0H2A9iV16RwhfMVcA6n4AcpHNI2y1Zj9h4AonOEGVhjMQ
r8yuhBNI7aYIfoFlJHssCXbVHBP2OZ65FLM8DqW7tO+dnLY1BDQx4e1BfKsYA/JU
qFOciYpytlE=
=37yi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vo...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Loïc Minier
> Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
> -8<-
> 1. The Developers note the existence and activities
> of the dunc-tanc project.
>
> 2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
> address dunc-tank in a General Resolution.
> ->8-
So, if this resolution wins the vote, it will contradict itself since
we will have had a GR on Dunc yet we find it not appropriate to
have one?
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Sven Luther
> * The Project Leader reduces the minimum discussion period
> and the voting period to one week each;
I strongly object.
I would like that we get a clarification over the non-free firmware for etch
vote, before you go lose yourself in highly political discussions of this
kind.
Please, let's get over the GRs first, which are stopping work to be done on
the technical side, before stuff like this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Anthony Towns
> and the voting period to one week each;
*blink*
I didn't realise I could change the voting period. Interestingly, only the
ability to change the discussion period is listed under "Project Leader /
Powers"; the ability to vary the vote length is only listed in the "GR /
Procedure" section.
Cheers,
aj
Stephen Gran
>
> 6. The Project requests that the Release Managers should not accept
> any funding for their core Debian activities without the consent of
> the Project.
What makes you think that the livelihood of an individual developer is
any of your (or Debian's) business? Prying in to developer's private
lives to make a point is much much worse than anything you think is
happening right now.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sg...@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathanael Nerode
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
>> -8<-
>> 1. The Developers note the existence and activities
>> of the dunc-tanc project.
>>
>> 2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
>> address dunc-tank in a General Resolution.
>> ->8-
>
> So, if this resolution wins the vote, it will contradict itself since
> we will have had a GR on Dunc yet we find it not appropriate to
> have one?
Technically it's not a contradiction: DDs can vote to behave
inappropriately. :-) Still, it's poor wording. I suggest the following
amendment to Ian:
Replace clause 2 of third resolution with:
2. The Project as a whole chooses not to express any further opinion on
dunc-tank at this time. This constitutes neither approval nor
disapproval.
--
Nathanael Nerode <ner...@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Russ Allbery
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
>> -8<-
>> 1. The Developers note the existence and activities
>> of the dunc-tanc project.
>>
>> 2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
>> address dunc-tank in a General Resolution.
>> ->8-
> So, if this resolution wins the vote, it will contradict itself since
> we will have had a GR on Dunc yet we find it not appropriate to
> have one?
It's the "Ian should never have proposed this in the first place, but
since he did, there's no way in hell I'm going to vote for more discussion
since that's the last thing we need" option.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
> Technically it's not a contradiction: DDs can vote to behave
> inappropriately. :-) Still, it's poor wording. I suggest the following
> amendment to Ian:
> Replace clause 2 of third resolution with:
> 2. The Project as a whole chooses not to express any further opinion on
> dunc-tank at this time. This constitutes neither approval nor
> disapproval.
That's not strong enough. I'm hoping that this isn't seconded at all, but
if we have to vote on it, I'd prefer an option that explicitly rejects
resolution by GR. Otherwise, I'd probably vote the entire thing below
more discussion.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
MJ Ray
Hash: SHA1
Seconded.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFF5VNmUY5euFC5vQRAlMiAJ9N2kIJzobRXEl85xlbsyZYmtFJAgCfZee9
3RZRQ5j8Xd2WtOBTSJs2hms=
=I1KZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Peter van Rossum
> Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
> -8<-
> 1. The Developers note the existence and activities
> of the dunc-tanc project.
>
> 2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
> address dunc-tank in a General Resolution.
> ->8-
Seconded (all three).
Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFHXWzYj5J4IdrJS8RAjffAJ0fgVAiQKVz0XmoaHEa5xDUrvZE5wCdFRz/
J28b5oWunwXEv0FDV55KpmU=
=pe2V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----