Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Denis Barbier
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
The first article[2] on the topic's already been
published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside
of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest
that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's
favour, and to allow other groups that have different
ideas about what priorities are important to encourage
contributions to those areas.
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is
will be up to Debian to decide.
The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: "Debian
experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time". Even
if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project
is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this
project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus
implicitly by the Debian project.
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
for this proposal.
Denis Barbier
[1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg
[2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1
Julien BLACHE
Hi,
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jbl...@debian.org>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169
Loïc Minier
Anthony did his best to handle this "cleanly" and openly, from the very
start. With his new funding project, he tried drawing a separation
which I consider similar to the one I draw between my personal and my
professional life. This separation is never perfect.
The DPL is pursuing this project because he thinks this is for the good
of Debian. Isn't it what being the DPL is all about?
Instead of depriving us of our DPL, instead of starting elections, long
flames, instead of painting Debian stupid, why don't you propose
something *constructive*.
I'm impressed by the energy and creativity Anthony found for this
issue, even if I strongely objected to his initial plan. Please, don't
be the one blocking innovation in Debian; be innovant instead.
Thanks,
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vo...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Aurelien Jarno
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aur...@debian.org | aure...@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Clint Adams
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded.
martin f krafft
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and
> I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question
> quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project
> Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am
> seeking seconds for this proposal.
*Not* seconded.
What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch, please ffs.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <mad...@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"all language designers are arrogant. goes with the territory..."
-- larry wall
John Goerzen
This is outlandish and insulting. That a Debian developer should be
held responsible every time someone in the press writes something
inaccurate is terribly wrong.
I applaud AJ for showing initiative and being willing to try new things
to improve Debian. I don't agree with everything he's done, but this is
an *experiment* and he described it as such.
Furthermore, Debian should not be attempting to control the lives of
developers outside of Debian. This represents a terrible intrusion into
privacy and, moreover, an unreasonable demand upon volunteers.
What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he
was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the
speech of its developers or leadership.
It is only by trying new ideas and having open and honest debate that
Debian will improve.
-- John
John Goerzen
> Seconded.
I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people
are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their
judgement about recalling a DPL?
Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian
publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL.
Why is there any support at all for this?
Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We
should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about.
Sven Luther
> What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he
> was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the
> speech of its developers or leadership.
Bah, this is in line with what has been happening in debian recently anyway,
remember our DPL made noise about censoring the mailing list and expulsing
people from them in the electoral campaign, and i am under control of Frans
over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did
before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Denis Barbier
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Seconded.
>
> I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people
> are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their
> judgement about recalling a DPL?
>
> Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian
> publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL.
>
> Why is there any support at all for this?
>
> Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We
> should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about.
Let me quote Anthony Towns again:
A question that has been raised is whether the organisation
can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when the DPL is
intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in
my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to
Debian to decide.
This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
Denis
John Goerzen
> Debian to decide.
>
> This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going
to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making
the attempt and observing the results.
I would note that this does nothing to actually make him stop with his
project.
Besides, getting an answer to a question seems a pretty flimsy reason to
recall a DPL.
Peter Samuelson
[Sven Luther]
> and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
OH NO YOU DON'T.
This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
_not_ about debian-installer.
Also, we've already heard it 100 times.
Sven Luther
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> > to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> > normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
>
> OH NO YOU DON'T.
Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right.
> This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
> _not_ about debian-installer.
It is indeed not about me, it is about the direction where debian is going,
and it is a trend i have been noticing since some time now, but some may say
it was so before even, and i have just been unaware of it.
The fact is some feel they can control what other do in public, like here with
Anthony, while other think they can control what other post on mailing lists,
like the d-i team tried to do with me, and others still believe a strong
censorship on the debian mailing list is the way to go, like Anthony and some
others mentioned in their electoral campaign these past two years.
Other such issues involve team leaders handling other team members like paid
employees, and not like fellow volunteers, and this is maybe more accute in
those who are themselves being paid to do debian work.
Not to mention arbitrary expulsions done in haste and without proper
procedures, or our secretary being under attack for the way he handles votes,
which i feel rather halucinating in itself.
All in all, i believe there are some folk whose participation in debian has
clearly gotten to their head, and there seems in the last few months a
complete lack of contact with reality and responsability as debian flames
over firmware and paying RMs and whatever not.
Time for all involved to get a bit of thinking done about all this, and check
in their pride, and see what this is doing, not only to debian as a whole, but
to the individual developpers also. Notice also how those flamewars and
intestine disputes may have some negative effects of some of the most fragile
among us, and i feel that i was myself also guilty of this, but at least i
recognize it and have tried to work on it, and i believe was quite successfull
at that during the last month or two.
> Also, we've already heard it 100 times.
Well, you may have heard it, but you clearly have a pre-defined idea of what i
am saying, and what i am actually saying is not entering your skull.
Matthew R. Dempsky
> two paragraphs:
> A question that has been raised is whether the
> organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
> to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is
> will be up to Debian to decide.
What's so scandalous about the DPL encouraging a timely release?
Josselin Mouette
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin...@ens-lyon.org
`. `' jo...@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Denis Barbier
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Debian to decide.
> >
> > This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
>
> It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going
> to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making
> the attempt and observing the results.
Huh? Observe the results of what?
> I would note that this does nothing to actually make him stop with his
> project.
Absolutely, this vote is not against the Dunc project, but the fact
that it is initiated by the Project Leader. I believe that the Dunc
project has to be distinct from Debian to have a chance to succeed,
and this is also the position stated on their pages, see
http://www.dunc-tank.org/background.html
It does, however, mean that questions of control and conflicts
of interest are considered very carefully by the project, and
after an in-depth discussion on the developer-only mailing
list, debian-private, it was decided to run this project
outside Debian proper, to ensure that any potential conflicts
of interest that might develop can be safely quarantined from
Debian itself.
Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the
Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both
projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and
preserve Debian in case of failure.
Denis
Michael Banck
> Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the
> Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both
> projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and
> preserve Debian in case of failure.
Uhm, did you ask any of the dunc-tank people whether they would like to
carry on after your GR passed? I don't see that as a given.
Michael
Stephen Gran
> Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the
> Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both
> projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and
> preserve Debian in case of failure.
So, just to be clear, you want to punish a Debian developer for their
activities outside of Debian? That sounds like a really good thing to
start doing. Can I be in charge of wiretaps in your brave new world?
I'm glad you're looking out for the good of Debian here. Because, just
for a moment, this really looked like a good way to create a lot of
divisiveness and make things much harder than they already are. But who
knows, maybe we'll be better off with DPL's that never try anything new.
Certainly a new idea is a punishable offense in most companies I've
seen.
So now that we're in crazy-as-batshit land, who do you want to bring up
on charges next?
I suggest an inquisition. Nobody ever expects that.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sg...@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Habouzit
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madc...@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit
> experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time". Even
> if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project
> is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this
> project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus
> implicitly by the Debian project.
>
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
To that rationale, I'd like to add the fact that Debian has two very
important documents: the SC and the Constitution. Neither of them is
strictly legally binding[1]. Nevertheless, that's the core of Debian,
it's the very first question we ask to our NM: please explain the SC,
and do you accept the Constitution.
I've always followed the Constitution with or without my DD hat, and I
would feel bad to break it, especially its spirit. It's our duty,
because those documents are what Debian really is. If we artificially
remove our DD hats to do whatever we want, even if it does indeed
concern Debian, we are just plain liars. The spirit of the Constitution
is that bigs steps have to be discussed and decided by the Project as a
whole. And for the leader, it's not only the spirit of the
Constitution, it's explicit:
§ 5.3. Procedure
The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
Where practical the Project Leader should informally solicit the
views of the Developers.
The Project Leader should avoid overemphasizing their own point of
view when making decisions in their capacity as Leader.
The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called "external"
structure has been launched. Onboard, we see many very well known
people, whose relation to Debian is unquestionable. Like Denis says,
the article on [3] title says "Debian experiments […]" and the first
sentence of the article is "The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is
experimenting with …". Please, this whole thing is a fraud, and it's
even less tolerable that it come from people that are abusing their
celebrity to endorse and support such initiatives.
The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been flouted. And
here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony Towns.
[1] maybe in some countries, but I seriously doubt that it's a general
rule at least.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
[3] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1
John Goerzen
>
> The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
> that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
> consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called "external"
> structure has been launched. Onboard, we see many very well known
You know, this is far from the first time a situation like this has
happened.
Some others, none of which caused proposals like this to occur,
included:
* Ubuntu is funding Debian developers due to a disagreement about
direction, emphasis, and release practices. A very real fork,
yet with many common developers with Debian.
* Progeny funded Debian developers working on alternative Debian
installers, configuration tools, and a host of other items and was
led at the time by none other than the founder of Debian (Ian
Murdock). Many of Progeny's employees were and are Debian
developers, with a former DPL (Branden) among them.
* Bruce, a former DPL, being involved with a venture capital firm that
funded Debian developers.
* Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
I don't recall this coming with strings such as "can't be spent on
programmer time". So there is even precedent for the project
doing this sort of thing.
> The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been flouted. And
> here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony Towns.
You have yet to show that the Debian constitution does, or even should,
apply to actions that occur outside of Debian.
AJ is also a programmer -- do you claim that the Debian constitution
and social contract prevents him from working for a proprietary
software company on his own time?
Sven Luther
> So now that we're in crazy-as-batshit land, who do you want to bring up
> on charges next?
>
> I suggest an inquisition. Nobody ever expects that.
This has been coming over the last year, the signs where there, you just
failed to see them.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Josselin Mouette
> So, just to be clear, you want to punish a Debian developer for their
> activities outside of Debian?
Have you only *read* the rationale?
Loïc Minier
> § 5.3. Procedure
> The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
> consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
> The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
> that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
> consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called "external"
> structure has been launched.
So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
officially request funding? NO.
Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private
initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need
of any DPL special power.
What does he get for trying his best to gather more support for Debian?
A "let's fire the DPL" GR.
> the first
> sentence of the article is "The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is
> experimenting with ..."
Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article?
Would you read an article claiming that Debian buys Ubuntu stock and
then call the leader a fraud? What if the article would claim that KDE
is sluggish in Debian?
I'm deeply disappointed by the french cabal supporting this DPL
bashing. Please do feel responsible for the fate of the project after
such a stupid vote.
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Loïc Minier
attitude of some developers that I want to reaffirm support for the
elected DPL whatever he does to suppose Debian outside of the project.
(The text of the proposal is attached.)
--
Loïc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Loïc Minier
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck Tank", lead by
I'm sorry for the typo, it is Dunc-Tank. Updated text attached.
--
Loïc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Raphael Hertzog
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck Tank", lead by
>
> I'm sorry for the typo, it is Dunc-Tank. Updated text attached.
I'm seconding the proposal/amendment below (with the typo correction s/Dunk/Dunc/):
-------
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
-------
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Loïc Minier
> I'm sorry for the typo, it is Dunc-Tank. Updated text attached.
How embarassing. I keep making typos, I hope this cheers readers up.
--
Loïc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
martin f krafft
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
Seconded. With or without a duck tank. :)
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <mad...@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
security at micro$oft: how do we secure a billion dollar profit?
Wouter Verhelst
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Sven Luther]
> > > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> > > to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> > > normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
> >
> > OH NO YOU DON'T.
>
> Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right.
Look who's talking.
> > This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
> > _not_ about debian-installer.
>
> It is indeed not about me,
THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU BRING IT UP?
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Wouter Verhelst
> How embarassing. I keep making typos, I hope this cheers readers up.
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
I second this proposal--with or without typos ;-)
I'll be the first to admit that I don't think AJ is perfect DPL
material; and I'll also be the first to admit that I don't agree with
everything he's done.
However, I respect and salute AJ for the courage he's shown in trying to
change Debian culture. It is seriously overdue that such an attempt
happened.
Aurelien Jarno
>> the first
>> sentence of the article is "The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is
>> experimenting with ..."
>
> Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article?
>
It's not a random article, it's the link given by Anthony himself with
the link to dunc-tank.org.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aur...@debian.org | aure...@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Sven Luther
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:19:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [Sven Luther]
> > > > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> > > > to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> > > > normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
> > >
> > > OH NO YOU DON'T.
> >
> > Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right.
>
> Look who's talking.
>
> > > This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is
> > > _not_ about debian-installer.
> >
> > It is indeed not about me,
>
> THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU BRING IT UP?
Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so, and the
issue with d-i and frans and me is part of it. I am under clear censorship if
i ever want to participate in d-i again, and this is something clearly sick
and not what i think debian is about. In the same way, trying to dictate what
Anthony does or not, outside of his debian work, is clearly in the same
category, so since the first one seemed acceptable by everyone, ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Denis Barbier
[Loic Minier]
> So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> officially request funding? NO.
>
> Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat[...]
This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance
http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html
Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
Denis
Daniel Ruoso
> There's always None of the above, but I am pissed enough by the
> attitude of some developers that I want to reaffirm support for the
> elected DPL whatever he does to suppose Debian outside of the project.
>
> (The text of the proposal is attached.)
----
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck Tank",
lead by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in
Charge.
However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of
the
Debian Project.
The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
towards the release of Etch.
-----
I second this proposal with or without typos...
And I hope my ISP's MTA doesn't mess with my signature... :)
daniel
Neil McGovern
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
I second this proposal, with or without the amendment for dunks, ducks
or daks.
Neil
--
* stockholm bangs head against budget
<h01ger> outsch
<stockholm> h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself
<gwolf> stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again!
Loïc Minier
> Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
> The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
> I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
While I could do this, our voting system makes it ok to have very
similar propositions in the same ballot, so there's no problem in
adding a new proposal similar to mine. If you want, I can propose a
second proposal, I don't think there's any problem with me sending two
proposals. However, I think it would much simpler if you would simply
withdraw your proposal and propose the stripped text instead.
The rest is just FYI.
> This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance
> http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html
Let me quote <http://www.dunc-tank.org/about.html>:
Dunc directly supports work on Debian, and is made up of a small
group of people who use Debian and who want to see Debian improve.
But Dunc is not endorsed by Debian, and Debian does not exercise any
control over how Dunc operates.
And <http://www.dunc-tank.org/press.html>:
Dunc-Tank.org is an independent group of developers, users and
supporters of Debian.
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Anthony Towns
> A question that has been raised is whether the
> organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
> to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is
> will be up to Debian to decide.
> experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time".
The second page of the article includes the following quote from me,
and a rough summary of the actual situation:
"It might turn out that Dunc-Tank is incompatible with Debian, and
that's one of the reasons it's been quarantined into a separate group
rather than being run as an experiment within Debian, but I personally
don't think it will."
Incidentally, as the Debian project is an association of individuals
and not a for-profit organisation, there is no formal association
with Dunc-Tank. Consequently, Dunc is not endorsed by Debian. However,
Dunc consists entirely of Debian users who all share the common goal
of bettering the distribution.
For comparison, that article got my city wrong (I live in Brisbane as
mentioned on the dunc-tank.org site, not Melbourne as was first in
the article, but apparently now corrected), and the ITwire interview
lists DPL elections as happening every two years, instead of every
year. Other articles, such as the slashdot story get it right first go:
"Dunc-Tank is not affiliated with the Debian Project directly, and in
fact was controversial on the debian-private list."
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the
new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions.
I'm seconding this because I do think it's a fair question for the project
to consider, and to make it clear I don't personally have any problem with
being recalled if that's what the project thinks is right and proper. If
I'm not DPL, I expect I'll continue doing what I have been: working on
dunc-tank.org, working on helping the release team get the release out,
poking at the security infrastructure to make sure it keeps behaving
itself, and continuing to support other folks who've approached me in
the past year where they still want that support. Frankly, I think we're
doing great, and I'm not remotely interested in quitting.
One thing I really appreciate is that Debian's an environment where if
you disagree with people you can be upfront about it, without worrying
that there'll be payback later. I'm very grateful that people, who
otherwise disagree with me, seem to trust my integrity and Debian's
processes enough to be able to act according to their beliefs, and not
forced to inaction out of fear. *That* is something to treasure.
AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup
an immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine
weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary (Manoj
Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where needed. The newly
elected DPL would serve for a year (unless recalled or resigning), meaning
the 2007 election would presumably happen in November, rather than March.
Given two weeks of discussion for this, two weeks of voting, and the nine
week election process, the earliest we'd have a DPL would be the end of
December by my count; so assuming this resolution passed and we released
on time, we'd be doing so without a DPL...
Oh, wait, I probably shouldn't be giving reasons to vote *for* the recall,
should I? :)
Cheers,
aj
Pierre Habouzit
just let me rephrase it then.
1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
2. The DPL is deeply in a structure that has supposedly nothing to do
with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of
Debian approval.
3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming from a
delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an
organisation. It's just not compatible.
If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily
for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL.
If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate
anymore, and especialy not DPL.
For me, it's not a vote for or against dunc-tank. I'm against it under
its current form, but there is nothing I can do about it. It's a vote
about a conflict of interest between the position of beeing the DPL,
and taking part into dunc.
It's not a recall vote against Mr Towns, it's a recall procedure to ask
him to make a choice between two uncompatible tasks.
martin f krafft
> Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so,
I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when
I was about ready to forget all the crap that went down with your
name on it, you manage to swim to the surface again.
Please cut it.
About trends in Debian: thank $DEITY there are some. I'd hate to be
part of a project that stagnates.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <mad...@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
$complex->{'data'}[$structures][$in_perl] = @{$can{'be'}->[$painful]};
Gaudenz Steinlin
---
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
---
Seconded (without typos).
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Sven Luther
> also sprach Sven Luther <sven....@wanadoo.fr> [2006.09.21.1206 +0200]:
> > Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so,
>
> I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when
> I was about ready to forget all the crap that went down with your
> name on it, you manage to swim to the surface again.
Bah, if you don't want to read me, just don't, but it is clear that atitudes
like yours clearly support that censorship imposed me, while at the same time
mostly everyone is behaving in similar or worse behaviour than i ever did
these past weeks, and they have dnot the excuses i had.
> Please cut it.
Why ? The situation is still mostly the same as it was in may, despite all
efforts i made, and you clearly do not read what i write, but what you think i
am writing.
> About trends in Debian: thank $DEITY there are some. I'd hate to be
> part of a project that stagnates.
Sure, my problem is when they deviate in the direction of censorship,
dictatorship and inquisition.
But then, maybe you find it ok, as long as you are not on the receiving end of
it ?
Stephen Gran
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
Seconded.
Stephen Gran
> [I am using a webmail from work, sorry for breaking the thread]
>
> [Loic Minier]
> > So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> > for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> > officially request funding? NO.
> >
> > Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat[...]
>
> This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance
> http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html
>
> Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
> The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
> I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
Fine:
--------------------BEGIN PROPOSAL---------------------------
The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
---------------------END PROPOSAL----------------------------
Here's hoping, although I'm not sure what having a GR to state the
obvious is supposed to accomplish.
Loïc Minier
> 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
This is oversimplified. The structure offers itself to collect funds
which will be clearly directed towards releasing etch by subventionning
time of the RMs. It's not like the structure was collecting money
*then* distributing it to whoever they think is good. It's not like it
isn't clear to want-to-be sponsors that they are in fact subventionning
Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth.
The rules for the flow of money is clear from the beginning in
dunc-tank, and wouldn't it be, it wouldn't get sponsors.
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Marc Dequènes
Coin,
Denis Barbier <bar...@linuxfr.org> wrote:
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Seconded.
Pierre Habouzit <madc...@debian.org> wrote:
> The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been
> flouted. And here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony
> Towns.
I do agree.
--
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
Josselin Mouette
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> > in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> > allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> > for this proposal.
>
> Seconded.
I hereby rescind my second.
First, because, as Sven explained, we don't need more GRs.
Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to
legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result.
Josselin Mouette
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 23:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> > > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> > > in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> > > allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> > > for this proposal.
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> I hereby rescind my second.
Oops, better with a signature.
Matthew Garrett
> Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to
> legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result.
"I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ
rather than me"? Come on.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.m...@srcf.ucam.org
Josselin Mouette
> "I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ
> rather than me"? Come on.
Or maybe I'm withdrawing my support because I'm busy with my chainsaw.
Amaya
> AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an
> immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine
> weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary
> (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where
> needed.
Ah, ok. I get it now.
So sre these all GRs popping up just an attempt, or secret plan, to DoS
poor Manoj?
Excuse me while I start my daily wall2headbanging routine...
--
·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
: :' : -- Emma Goldman
`. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (unstable)
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
Sven Luther
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an
> > immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine
> > weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary
> > (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where
> > needed.
>
> Ah, ok. I get it now.
> So sre these all GRs popping up just an attempt, or secret plan, to DoS
> poor Manoj?
Hehe, i hadn't thought about this :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Graham Wilson
> If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily
> for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL.
> If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate
> anymore, and especialy not DPL.
Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
Obiviously, this is a divisive issue, but I'm not sure how many people
are upset by it. Would others who are have seconded this proposal,
and/or others who are considering raising or secoding proposals about
the dunc-tank project be satisfied if aj is not involved with dunc-tank
project? Or, is the fact that it could still be run by Debian developers
(sans aj) still a problem?
Aj, what are your thoughts on not being involved with dunc-tank? Would
the project still have a chance to meet its goals?
--
gram
Ben Pfaff
Hash: SHA1
Loďc Minier <lool+...@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
Seconded.
- --
Ben Pfaff
email: b...@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iQEVAwUBRRK0MLf2jhx5fmQdAQLwjAgAnG8h7K7Hqc30pJi7Ovpo64ufP3BXAN97
RYl4vA+0T0fktLJZm2rQhvNUZa1kn59nOFKQca3OeNn3dbiMCTRQJ2DVUvGnMzA+
IUfN8VPoiwFxYqjrtFoMeaaaQj9C5CjlE5W7Ss0Qv7Ou8t2fTybzgy+vQrQe41g+
tjClz1VX/rsE6V2GKu4AOvcegMhmXM+6lOS4o2dpYu+8RfunvA/bWOsFVjKi3LZJ
74zlAY1HErGW41sNzI8BMg3DQhfqei2+7Z79umWCS9bm55L9anobHvqd+YPw3KCg
lAGRpfdpKwtwH9e87thk8mFO5282JqNlLXvABjksvDboUFCK+T7vfg==
=pn3U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pierre Habouzit
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works
> > publicily for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can
> > stay as DPL. If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not
> > be a delegate anymore, and especialy not DPL.
>
> Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
> dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
there is IMHO two distinct issues with dunc-tank:
(1) the conflict of interests that motivated my second ;
(2) the idea of the project itself.
I do not agree with dunc-tank, but there is nothing that I can do
against it, as it has been on purpose kept away from the project, so
the debate about dunc-tank does not belong here, on -vote.
And there is the problem that delegates that can take decisions in
debian are involved in dunc-tank. If Aj decide not to be involved in
dunk-tank anymore, then the problem (1) disappears. Only remains (2),
but (2) has not to be solved or discussed through a recall procedure,
that would be a blatant ad-hominem attack, while in my mind it's not.
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact
half solved.
I obviously only speak for myself.
Graham Wilson
> I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact
> half solved.
Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove
Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on
the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's
involvement.
Pierre Habouzit
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in
> > fact half solved.
>
> Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to
> remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems
> (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is
> with aj's involvement.
Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said,
if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be
clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done "against"
Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's
not "allowed" in the constitution.
Denis Barbier
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
> > The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
> > I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
>
> While I could do this, our voting system makes it ok to have very
> similar propositions in the same ballot, so there's no problem in
> adding a new proposal similar to mine.
My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple
question: "whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently
"outside" of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved."
It obviously failed, many people got it wrong.
But I do not understand why people keep writing proposals by mixing
different items, some of them being divisive. For instance, your
proposal embeds several statements:
a. Debian supports its DPL.
b. Debian blesses the Dunc project.
c. Debian and Dunc are two distinct bodies.
In my proposal, I deliberately avoided to say anything in favor of
or against Dunc, because we gain nothing with such a statement.
If it fails, this will also become a Debian failure, If it succeeds,
well, this will also be good for Debian.
> If you want, I can propose a second proposal, I don't think there's
> any problem with me sending two proposals. However, I think it would
> much simpler if you would simply withdraw your proposal and propose
> the stripped text instead.
It has a better chance of success if it is proposed by someone who is
seen as supporting this experiment. Given the heated reactions, I
doubt that I am the adequate person.
Denis
Loïc Minier
> It has a better chance of success if it is proposed by someone who is
> seen as supporting this experiment. Given the heated reactions, I
> doubt that I am the adequate person.
Check <20060921112...@www.lobefin.net>, which is a GPG signed
ballot proposal (as I understand it).
Please recall your GR proposal.
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Loïc Minier
> My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple
> question: "whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently
> "outside" of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved."
> It obviously failed, many people got it wrong.
Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
> But I do not understand why people keep writing proposals by mixing
> different items, some of them being divisive. For instance, your
> proposal embeds several statements:
> a. Debian supports its DPL.
> b. Debian blesses the Dunc project.
> c. Debian and Dunc are two distinct bodies.
My proposal was mostly targetted at killing yours. :)
Youe wrong with b., I never said Debian blesses Dunc. I said "The
Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank"" and
"The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or
helping towards the release of Etch.", which is something which was
meant to be as consensual as "we wish nice things to people wanting
nice thinkgs for Debian", but it seems to have failed.
--
Loďc Minier <lo...@dooz.org>
Denis Barbier
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple
> > question: "whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently
> > "outside" of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved."
> > It obviously failed, many people got it wrong.
>
> Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
I strongly disagree, and this assertion does not help this discussion.
Anyway I was of course referring to those who disliked my proposal.
Denis
Erich Schubert
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", led by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
Debian Project.
The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
towards the release of Etch.
---
I second this proposal.
Independantly of being pro or con dunc-tank (or duck-tank ;-), and of
the fact that there are already DDs being paid by outside companies
(should we kick them out?) or any other opinion, impression, myth or
fact about dunc-tank:
I'm seriously disappointed how some people in Debian handled this issue.
Especially by using threats to force their opinion or getting personal
against our DPL, who is *trying* to improve Debian, instead of just
doing some happy talking and fighting. He has my full support just for
actually *trying* to improve things, whether or not they turn out to be
a success or not.
In my opinion the way some people here handled this issue is harming the
spirit and morale of Debian more than the dunc-tank project ever could.
Reading these recent threads (this also includes some other recent
discussions), I wonder if Debian is the right place for me because of
THEM, not because of the whole dunc-tank thing itself. I don't care if
someone else receives money for doing Debian work. In fact I might even
donate myself; and I've mentored in the summer of code which should give
Debian $500 in donations by Google. However, I don't have the impression
that we're making good use of the funds donated to Debian so far,
actually, which gives me the impression of _wasting_ efforts on Debian
when trying to get some money for the project e.g. on conferences and
trade shows like the Systems in Munich.
Anyway, I havn't really made up my mind about Dunc-Tank yet, but I
definitely don't like how some of the opposers of it acted. And I don't
think our DPL deserves the treatment aimed at by the other proposal.
best regards,
Erich Schubert
--
erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org) -- GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C (o_
Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? --- Calvin //\
Nur der ist weise, der weiß, dass er es nicht ist. --- Sokrates V_/_
Russ Allbery
Hash: SHA1
I second the following proposal by Loïc Minier <lool+...@via.ecp.fr>,
marked by "=====" lines.
=====
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
Debian Project.
The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
towards the release of Etch.
=====
- --
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFFEyWJ+YXjQAr8dHYRApWrAJ0fQ1JuVVo2d8eIy0ZeTJS3W0G6awCfeKi5
5L1Z/slsRc1c0yVbM27uKOE=
=dQ7z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anthony Towns
------begin------
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
Seconded.
Cheers,
aj
Steve Langasek
> There's always None of the above, but I am pissed enough by the
> attitude of some developers that I want to reaffirm support for the
> elected DPL whatever he does to suppose Debian outside of the project.
A recall vote falls under §4.1.1 of the constitution, and a position
statement such as the one you proposed falls under §4.1.5. I'm not sure if
these belong on the same ballot? I guess it's not so different from having
a ballot where some options amend foundation documents and others don't.
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck Tank",
^^^^ Dunc :)
> lead by Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in
^^^^ led
> Charge. However, this particular experiment is not the result of a
> decision of the Debian Project.
FWIW dunc-tank.org does not say that it is run by Anthony and Steve; they
are listed as two members of a five-member board. So it seems a strange
defense against accusations of abusing his position to at the same time
claim he's "running" an organization that he doesn't claim to run :-)
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vor...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Kalle Kivimaa
Hash: SHA1
I'm seconding the following proposal made by Loďc Minier:
- -------------------------------------------------------------
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck Tank", lead by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
Debian Project.
The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
towards the release of Etch.
- -------------------------------------------------------------
- --
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFFEk7wkuYKi19tgBURAlUgAJ42SY3MJfiTOBwjBJvjqsSUJosjIACdFYug
LbgshjS9xiedFMAwhyPDsmc=
=oIzC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kalle Kivimaa
Hash: SHA1
I'm still seconding Loďc Minier's (typo-corrected) proposal:
- --------------------------------------------------------------
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
Debian Project.
The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
towards the release of Etch.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
- --
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFFElJ0kuYKi19tgBURAkWIAJ9fnEtff51y3dmyAalvdGmHb4FPqwCfU2yy
zXeKjaYryx6YQIa94PsE1DA=
=WiHs
Josselin Mouette
> Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
There's some difference between "not liking aj" and "thinking aj is
hurting the project to the point he should be recalled".
BALLABIO GERARDO
recall the DPL even without reason if they wish, my very humble opinion
is that it should be done *only* when the DPL is guilty of something
*very* bad. Please explain why that would be the case.
If you feel that the DPL shouldn't participate to Dunc-tank, why not
just ask him to withdraw his participation? Unless you feel that setting
up that project was a "betrayal" or an attempt to subvert Debian. Or you
were just waiting for an excuse to try and recall him.
(Or you think the real purpose of Dunc-tank is to hire young female
stage workers to entertain the DPL in Debian's oval room -- sorry,
couldn't resist ;-)
Gerardo
Sam Hocevar
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck
> Tank"
I do not like how this "not objecting" might be interpreted as
support. I want Debian to neither object nor not object. If it is to be
unassociated with the experiment, I want Debian to clearly state that it
is by no ways associated with the experiment.
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or
> helping towards the release of Etch.
I do not like how this statement implies that the position of Debian
is that Dunc-Tank helps towards the release of Etch. It might be or
might not be helping, and that will be for Debian to decide /after/ it
has happened.
--
Sam.
Steve Langasek
> just let me rephrase it then.
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin,
nor Andi nor I, nor any of the current release assistants, were ever the
subject of a formal delegation by the DPL, any more than your typical
package maintainer is. The release team has had the /support/ of the DPL
for as long as I've been involved in it, but we're not here as a consequence
of the DPL's approval per se.
I suppose the DPL has the authority to dismiss a release manager, but I
don't think that makes it a delegated position after the fact.
> that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming from a
> delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an
> organisation. It's just not compatible.
Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a delegate, the DPL is the
DPL.
And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position
in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds
Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to
hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to
serve Debian in a delegate capacity.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vor...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Pierre Habouzit
> > that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming
> > from a delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an
> > organisation. It's just not compatible.
>
> Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a delegate, the DPL is
> the DPL.
>
> And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated
> position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any
> organization that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find
> that to be an insane position to hold. I can only imagine it
> decreasing the number of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate
> capacity.
Like said on IRC yesterday, what I meant is a delegate with decision
powers in debian + the DPL (who is technically not a delegate). So
there is quite few, only the DPL, his asssistant, and maybe the
Secretary.
Bdale Garbee
Hash: SHA1
lool+...@via.ecp.fr (Loïc Minier) writes:
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
> Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
> Debian Project.
>
> The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
> towards the release of Etch.
Seconded.
Bdale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFFFPIdZKfAp/LPAagRAriXAJ0V/F8KnzdO1xWpzUZs1kpI6UFqZgCbBjrf
3MpoLgfADIKSlH7FN5uU4wk=
=qEoj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
MJ Ray
> So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> officially request funding? NO.
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
against some developers' opinions?
> Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private
> initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need
> of any DPL special power.
Yes, instead of working as DPL to find a compromise, he yet again seeks
to direct debian funding away from debian's control and its established
partners. Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather
than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored.
> What does he get for trying his best to gather more support for Debian?
> A "let's fire the DPL" GR.
If this DPL's best does not include revising his proposals or seeking
compromise, then it's time for a new DPL. This will get support for
more than the Dunk Tank reason.
[...]
> Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article?
I agree, the article inaccuracies are not a major reason to support
the recall, but it is likely to be the first of many if the DPL is
heading a debian proposal which has been taken outside the project.
> I'm deeply disappointed by the french cabal supporting this DPL
> bashing. Please do feel responsible for the fate of the project after
> such a stupid vote.
When I asked for likely seconds for a recall a while ago (now
made obsolete by this proposal), I was surprised by the number of
French-sounding supporters. I myself am probably a francophile.
I wonder, is there something about this brash DPL which is particularly
un-French? One for the sociologists/anthropologists, perhaps?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
MJ Ray
Hash: SHA1
Denis Barbier <bar...@linuxfr.org>
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
I second the proposal that we recall the Project Leader.
My reasons are not the same as Denis, but I understand this is a straight
recall-or-not vote and I think this DPL is not making decisions consistent
with the consensus of our opinions, is not sincerely soliciting our
views and is overemphasising his own point of view, so is essentially not
following the DPL's procedures, about debian-boot, sun-java, firmware,
development contracts, the debian trademark, personal attacks ...
- --
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFFQmKmUY5euFC5vQRAs4KAJ90VtFAXuVeS9d/ORIUwfFtEdaOzACfdrv5
4iALgWZ3Q0xG0ssRsjvZYNI=
=sZ9H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
MJ Ray
> Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
> dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
As I stated elsewhere (and was ignored by AJ at least once), I am not
particularly troubled by paying the RMs, but - as I understand it -
the dunc-tank model is flawed. I'd welcome a pragmatic attempt to
find a compromise, but I expect standing-aside is the most we can get
from some developers with irreconcilable objections to the concept.
Nevertheless, the DPL procedures have been totally screwed-up again,
so I would still support recalling AJ.
Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Clint Adams
> don't think that makes it a delegated position after the fact.
> And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position
> in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds
> Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to
> hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to
> serve Debian in a delegate capacity.
Oh my.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier <lool+...@via.ecp.fr>
> > So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> > for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> > officially request funding? NO.
>
> How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> against some developers' opinions?
If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's
opinion, then, frankly, the DPL cannot possibly make any decision, ever.
Fortunately, the DPL is empowered by the constitution to "Make any
decision for whom noone else has responsibility." (5.1.4).
> > Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private
> > initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need
> > of any DPL special power.
>
> Yes, instead of working as DPL to find a compromise, he yet again seeks
> to direct debian funding away from debian's control and its established
> partners. Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather
> than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored.
Unfortunately, on this subject, which suggestions are considered
reasonable diverges hugely depending whom you ask. I agree consensus
would be preferred, but a compromise isn't always preferable, because
you would not easily arrive at some of the more interesting decisions
that a DPL with a mission could arrive at. I appload Anthony for
experimenting with various ways, some bolder than others, to improve
Debian and increase momentum. I realize some of those experiments will
fail, but I strongly believe we have enough checks and balances, and
as a project also resilience, for this DPL term to have a net
positive effect on Debian.
As Dutch saying goes, "if you never shoot, you'll always miss".
That said, though, I dare say our current DPL *is* seeking compromise,
and is not acting this bold. He could have simply decided to proceed
within Debian.
> If this DPL's best does not include revising his proposals or seeking
> compromise, then it's time for a new DPL. This will get support for
> more than the Dunk Tank reason.
<2006082612...@azure.humbug.org.au> in debian-private 2006-08
is IMHO a pretty decent attempt at listening carefully to comments
raised, and consequently revising a proposal to seek compromise.
I'd say Anthony is trying.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jer...@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Erich Schubert
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
>
> with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of
> Debian approval.
>
> 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
As you've noted yourself, that structure has supposedly nothing to do
with Debian. So it's especially independant from aj being DPL or the
people to be funded being the RMs.
Dunc-tank could also fund all new maintainers with $5 if they think
thats reasonable and if they find sponsors to donate this money. Or buy
dilbert comics for all DDs. Or sponsor beer.
There is no need to have AJs DPL-hat nominate someone to fund him via
dunc-tank.
The principle is simple:
- if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
- dunc-tank tries to give money to people so it yields this impression
(to get more money)
If dunc-tank is funding people who really don't deserve it, you're
welcome to say so. Especially when AJ is abusing his DPL powers to
nominate some RMs for whatever reason to make it look more legitimate to
waste money donated to dunc-tank by someone.
While it might look helpful if neither AJ nor Steve would be on the
dunc-tank board - I certainly do prefer people deeply involved with the
project there - I doubt it will make any of you more reasonable. Because
it apparently is not at all what you are concerned about. And probably
you'll just claim that while not being officially on the board, they
still have a serious amount of influence.
All you are actually cared about is that some people might get some
money for their work, and others might be annoyed by not getting similar
support.
But IMHO this is already the reality right now. Some people ARE already
getting money for their work on Debian. It's just not by dunc-tank.
best regards,
Erich Schubert
--
erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org) -- GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C (o_
The best things in life are free: Friendship and Love. //\
Wer keine Zeit mehr mit echten Freunden verbringt, der wird bald V_/_
sein Gleichgewicht verlieren. --- Michael Levine
Russ Allbery
>> And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated
>> position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization
>> that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an
>> insane position to hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number
>> of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate capacity.
> Oh my.
I agree with the sentiment of the text quoted above; I think that position
would be very unrealistic.
Many of us use Debian as part of our jobs; that's the reason why we got
involved in Debian in the first place. Stanford pays me in part to be a
Debian developer because Stanford cares about having a high quality Debian
distribution to deploy on its infrastructure servers and specifically
about having high-quality Kerberos and AFS packages. I bet there are
dozens, probably hundreds, of other system administrators here who are in
a similar position, where their job is not entirely Debian by any stretch
but where they have official blessing to do some work on Debian on their
employer's time and hence are being funded to be Debian developers.
Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough
people willing to do critical central work that one can rule out everyone
who has such an agreement with their employer. In fact, having such an
agreement with one's employer is even *more* important for a delegated
position that involves a larger time committment. Otherwise, the only
people you could get to take on time-intensive delegated positions are
people who either have very flexible working conditions or who have
sufficient personal funds to not have to work a full-time job.
It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act in
the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats, and to
be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a variety of
different positions involved in critical decisions. This isn't exactly a
new problem, though, and *many* free software projects have already dealt
with issues like this in a reasonable way.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Clint Adams
No, everyone with special privileges or access is "magically different".
That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth.
> people willing to do critical central work that one can rule out everyone
Aren't there?
> position that involves a larger time committment. Otherwise, the only
> people you could get to take on time-intensive delegated positions are
> people who either have very flexible working conditions or who have
> sufficient personal funds to not have to work a full-time job.
Sounds like you're describing a volunteer organization.
> It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act in
> the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats, and to
> be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a variety of
> different positions involved in critical decisions. This isn't exactly a
> new problem, though, and *many* free software projects have already dealt
> with issues like this in a reasonable way.
As far as I can tell, the developer body is not united in that
expectation.
Sam Hocevar
> The principle is simple:
> - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
--
Sam.
Martin Schulze
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> > of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> > answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> > and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the
> > Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both
> > projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and
> > preserve Debian in case of failure.
>
> Uhm, did you ask any of the dunc-tank people whether they would like to
> carry on after your GR passed? I don't see that as a given.
Which would imply that it is strongly associated to the project leader
which was the reason why Denis proposed this general resolution.
Err... Did I just misunderstand you?
Regards,
Joey
--
This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.
Martin Schulze
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> > two paragraphs:
>
> > A question that has been raised is whether the
> > organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> > the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
> > to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is
> > will be up to Debian to decide.
>
> What's so scandalous about the DPL encouraging a timely release?
It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly
paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to.
Martin Schulze
> * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
> development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
> I don't recall this coming with strings such as "can't be spent on
> programmer time". So there is even precedent for the project
> doing this sort of thing.
Maybe it wasn't known to you but this money wasn't used to pay a particular
developer but to let some developers travel to a conference. So it's a
totally different issue.
Martin Schulze
> Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > > either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in
> > > fact half solved.
> >
> > Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to
> > remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems
> > (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is
> > with aj's involvement.
>
> Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said,
> if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be
> clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done "against"
> Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's
> not "allowed" in the constitution.
Umh? Why would Steve be disposed as well? I'm missing a crucial bit
here, I guess.
Regards,
Joey
--
This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Russ Allbery
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote:
>> The principle is simple:
>> - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
> Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
*heh*. I expect Erich's "they" referred to "dunc-tank" not "people." :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
>> Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough
> No, everyone with special privileges or access is "magically different".
> That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth.
I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those
particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the
Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically
different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to
the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done
anything with that access yet due to lack of time?
>> Otherwise, the only people you could get to take on time-intensive
>> delegated positions are people who either have very flexible working
>> conditions or who have sufficient personal funds to not have to work a
>> full-time job.
> Sounds like you're describing a volunteer organization.
I think we're not using the same definition of volunteer.
More to the point, this pattern, however you would care to describe it, is
extremely common among free software projects and, for that matter, many
other types of organizations that do things for the common good. Many
corporations will sponsor (i.e., fund) employee activities for such
organizations as Habitat for Humanity, for instance. I don't consider
this to be in any way a bad thing. I think it's *way* too restrictive to
require that no employer be involved in any way. One does have to take
care with conflicts of interest, but it's possible to act responsibily
with respect to conflicts of interest without segregating one's life to
*that* degree.
Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not*
segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so
and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would
require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work time.
I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not* have to do
that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult conflicts of
interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on what I feel
needs to get done without having to worry about who "owns" that work, and
I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with that *personal*
decision.
>> It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act
>> in the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats,
>> and to be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a
>> variety of different positions involved in critical decisions. This
>> isn't exactly a new problem, though, and *many* free software projects
>> have already dealt with issues like this in a reasonable way.
> As far as I can tell, the developer body is not united in that
> expectation.
I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is large
enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
martin f krafft
> It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
> indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
> to.
No, it's about a timely release and enabling two people of core
importance to dedicate even more of their time, using limited funds
in a well-defined manner. It's about an experiment to see whether
it has the potential break our track record of continuously missing
our deadlines.
And quite obviously, there's a lot of personal, emotional stuff
involved on the side of the opponents. Are you jealous that you're
not getting any money this time? Are you fearing that you may never
get any money?
In your "essay" you ask: "Why should those, who have to make money
in other areas in order to live at all, continue to work
voluntarily?" -- I've tried to answer that in my recent blog post:
because they believe in the project they're working on, and they're
ready to look forward with everyone else, not peek sideways to see
what the others are doing or whether they're better off.
If you don't believe in the project and you're not ready to steady
your stare foreward, I think there's a whole other issue at play.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <mad...@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"funny how just when you think life can't possibly get any worse
it suddenly does."
-- marvin
Clint Adams
> particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the
> Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically
> different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to
> the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done
> anything with that access yet due to lack of time?
If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly
a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to
remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of
people who can revert this, and roughly a thousand who can NMU the
relevant perl packages in the meantime. lintian is a similar situation.
If Company Z bribes you to not make QA uploads, no one will notice.
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but
we cannot fix the problem directly.
Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment?
> More to the point, this pattern, however you would care to describe it, is
> extremely common among free software projects and, for that matter, many
> other types of organizations that do things for the common good. Many
> corporations will sponsor (i.e., fund) employee activities for such
> organizations as Habitat for Humanity, for instance. I don't consider
> this to be in any way a bad thing. I think it's *way* too restrictive to
> require that no employer be involved in any way. One does have to take
> care with conflicts of interest, but it's possible to act responsibily
> with respect to conflicts of interest without segregating one's life to
> *that* degree.
If my employer encourages me to spend an hour a week working on Debian,
I think that's fine. If my employer demands that I spend one hour per
week trying to get HotJava through NEW, I will either refuse or resign
myself to be an unscrupulous hypocrite.
> Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not*
> segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so
> and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would
> require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work time.
> I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not* have to do
> that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult conflicts of
> interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on what I feel
> needs to get done without having to worry about who "owns" that work, and
> I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with that *personal*
> decision.
Then I'm not sure of what I might be saying that applies to you.
> I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is large
> enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything.
Perhaps this is nostalgic hagiography, but we used to be united in
producing a quality OS.
I suspect that I've reached Matthew Wilcox's 3-post-per-day limit
now.
martin f krafft
> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but
> we cannot fix the problem directly.
>
> Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment?
Fortunately, nobody is talking about employing release managers.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <mad...@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"if one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again,
there is no use in reading it at all."
-- oscar wilde
Thomas Bushnell BSG
> How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> against some developers' opinions?
Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers have a vote
power over the actions of the DPL?
Russ Allbery
> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
> cannot fix the problem directly.
> Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment?
If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me
$50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation
is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple
question of ethics. The conflict could come from any number of sources,
including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether
I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from
my employer.
The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As
a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that
carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of
the project. Should I be put into a situation where I don't feel like I
can do that without conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. Should
someone offer me a bargain like the above, I would refuse it. Should the
Debian project as a whole not trust me to act ethically, it shouldn't
trust me with that sort of position.
I don't think that this is so dire of a peril that we should throw up our
hands, decide no one can be trusted to behave ethically in such a
situation, and bar any employer support of any position we think is
important (and that line is hard to draw and isn't just delegates, since
the real risk is more subtle than simple vandalism of the type that you
described and the gcc maintainers, kernel maintainers, d-i developers,
libc maintainers, and so forth all also have important, central roles in
Debian). These sorts of ethical requirements are simply not that
uncommon, and the vast majority of people negotiate them without any major
difficulty.
The best thing the project can do to help with this is to work to avoid
small points of failure and to put more people in a position to help
should a conflict arise. We *have* had a problem with this, and I *do*
think it's a problem. Ironically, release management is one of the areas
where this is *less* of a problem....
> If my employer encourages me to spend an hour a week working on Debian,
> I think that's fine. If my employer demands that I spend one hour per
> week trying to get HotJava through NEW, I will either refuse or resign
> myself to be an unscrupulous hypocrite.
Exactly. And I expect any ftp-master would do the same thing, and that
anyone who wouldn't make that decision shouldn't become an ftp-master.
And as long as they held that ethical position, it wouldn't matter whether
their employer encouraged them to spend an hour a week working on the NEW
queue (thus making them funded to work on Debian).
>> Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not*
>> segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so
>> and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would
>> require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work
>> time. I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not*
>> have to do that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult
>> conflicts of interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on
>> what I feel needs to get done without having to worry about who "owns"
>> that work, and I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with
>> that *personal* decision.
> Then I'm not sure of what I might be saying that applies to you.
Basically, I'm trying to make the argument that other people are just as
capable of doing this as I am, and that it's possible to negotiate these
waters without creating conflicts of interest. And that doing so is very
common in projects of this kind.
>> I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is
>> large enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything.
> Perhaps this is nostalgic hagiography, but we used to be united in
> producing a quality OS.
*heh*. Touché, and a fair point. I probably should have instead said
that the developer project is large enough that it's unlikely to be united
in anything other than the sorts of general goals without which they
wouldn't bother to be a Debian Developer at all.
> I suspect that I've reached Matthew Wilcox's 3-post-per-day limit now.
I managed to teach lintian's dependency handling how to understand that
a|b implies a|b|c, so I'm giving myself a (small) allowance of time to
respond to d-v. But now I need to go fix serious bugs in gnubg.
Julien BLACHE
>> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
>> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
>> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
>> cannot fix the problem directly.
>
>> Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment?
>
> If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me
> $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation
> is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple
No it isn't the same. The relation between your employer and you and
between the other distribution and you is quite different.
This difference should be pretty clear.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jbl...@debian.org>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169
Anibal Monsalve Salazar
>The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
>The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Dunc-Tank", lead by
>Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
> However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the
>Debian Project.
>
>The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping
>towards the release of Etch.
Seconded.
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal
Stephen Gran
> > I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those
> > particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the
> > Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically
> > different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to
> > the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done
> > anything with that access yet due to lack of time?
>
> If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly
> a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to
> remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of
> people who can revert this, and roughly a thousand who can NMU the
> relevant perl packages in the meantime. lintian is a similar situation.
> If Company Z bribes you to not make QA uploads, no one will notice.
>
> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but
> we cannot fix the problem directly.
Of course we can. Just fix all the RC bugs, make sure testing is fully
installable and library transitions are complete, ensure that the
quality level is where it should be and that we've reached all of our
release blocker goals. Then ask the people who actually do the grunt
work of a new release (ftp masters, cd image team, etc) to go to work
removing the last few packages that don't play nice and then roll out
the release.
I say this lightly, as if it's not hard work, but it's not magic stuff
here. It's not a role account that is special because it has access to
special privileges or knowledge. It's a job about doing a lot of
cleanup because we as maintainers can't be bothered to make sure our
little playgrounds interoperate with the rest of the distribution until
someone pokes us with a stick.
None of this is meant to slight you guys doing release work, by the
way. I think you guys do a lot of hard work and do it well. It must be
nice to be accused of being unethical enough to subvert a release in
exchange for substandard wages.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sg...@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Allbery
>>> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
>>> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of
>>> 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace
>>> you, but we cannot fix the problem directly.
>>> Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment?
>> If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me
>> $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the
>> situation is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion,
>> is a simple
> No it isn't the same. The relation between your employer and you and
> between the other distribution and you is quite different.
> This difference should be pretty clear.
Well, apparently I'm dumb, so you're going to have to spell it out for me.
What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something
unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to
get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of
telling one's employer no? If so, remember that you can resolve a
conflict of interest by refusing *either* party; if I can't resolve the
non-Debian issue creating the conflict of interest, I would resign the
Debian position. This is a distinction that doesn't interfere with
resolving the issue. (Not to mention that one's employer is far from the
only party in one's life that one may not be able to easily say no to.)
And, rather more to the point, are you comfortable poking this far into
other people's motivations and conduct in their personal lives to the
extent that you would try to analyze this sort of thing for any delegate
and even non-delegated positions like RM? I find that unnecessary and
rather intrusive. Surely, what we owe each other is ethical behavior.
What arrangements we make in our personal lives to ensure that we can
behave ethically are our own business.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>