Fourth call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007

Hi,

        At the time of writing, a couple of minutes into the third
 (and final) week of the vote, we are doing OK with regards to voter
 participation, all things considered.  The big story in this election
 seems to be the debacle of the letter ë. This mostly impacts people
 sending in in-line OpenPGP signed ballots, since helpful MUAs and MTA in
 the path then "protect" the non-7bit clean message body, which mucks
 up the cryptographic check of the ballot.

        MUAs sending in PGP/MIME messages are fine, as are people
 sending in in-line OpenPGP encrypted ballots (make sure you also sign
 all encrypted ballots).  Since RFC 2015 was published in '96, it is
 not hard to find conforming MUAs; google is your friend. For
 instance:

   http://www.bretschneidernet.de/tips/secmua.html

 ===================================================================
 ||    |Total # of|      |Valid|Unique|Rejects|        | Multiple ||
 ||Year|Developers|Quorum|Votes|Voters|       |% Voting| of Quorum||
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 ||2002|  939     | 45.96|     | 342  |       | 36.42  |  7.44    ||
 ||2003|  831     | 43.24|     | 315  |       | 37.90  |  7.28    ||
 ||2004|  908     | 45.20| 351 | 341  |  47   | 37.55  |  7.54    ||
 ||2005|  964     | 46.57| 329 | 311  |  43   | 32.26  |  6.68    ||
 ||2006|  972     | 46.89| 234 | 227  |  25   | 23.35  |  4.84    ||
 ||2007| 1036     | 48.28| 315 | 295  | 149   | 28.47  |  6.11    ||
 ===================================================================

Reject rate high. Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007

Hi,

This year, the 'rejects' rate seems alarmingly high. Is it due to the
accented letters in 'Raphael'?
I'm Looking at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/

regards,
	junichi
--

-- 
dancer <at> {debian.org,netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project

Re: Reject rate high. Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007

Junichi Uekawa <dancer <at> netfort.gr.jp> writes:

> This year, the 'rejects' rate seems alarmingly high. Is it due to the
> accented letters in 'Raphael'?
> I'm Looking at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/

Yes, that's probably the explanation.  There was some discussion on
debian-devel.  Basically, those of us who were using inline PGP signatures
via various means such as Mailcrypt in Gnus ran into the problem of
quoted-printable encoding being applied after the signature, which
invalidated the signature.  The workaround is to encrypt the mail as well
as sign it; the real solution is to use PGP/MIME, since the standard then
says what to do to interoperate.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:02:18 +0200, Michal Čihař <michal <at> cihar.com> said: 

> Maybe I read RFC 3156 wrong, but I think it says exactly what I
> sent:

> 6.1.  RFC 1847 Encapsulation

>    In [2], it is stated that the data is first signed as a
>    multipart/signature body, and then encrypted to form the final
>    multipart/encrypted body.  This is most useful for standard MIME-
>    compliant message forwarding.

        No, you were quite correct; I had zone on RFC 1847
 Encapsulation while writing up dvt-gpg. Mind you, implementing this
 was icky, since this breaks the nice little work-flow where first we do
 mime decoding, and then gpg verifications; now devotee has to decrypt
 the mail message, note that there did not seem to be any signatures
 on the message, run the mime parser on the newly decrupted body, see
 if there are exactly two parts with the proper mime encoding, save
 the body and the signature, and then run gpg again over the new body
 and sig, and properly bubble up any errors at any stage of the
 processing.

        No wonder people tried to warn me away from implementing my
 own mail handling and mime and gpg parsing when I started thinking
 about writing devotee.

        I added all this icky code to devotee, and now devotee is
 indeed fully compliant with RFC 3156.

Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007

Hi,

        At the time of writing, less than two days before the end of
 the vote, the standing are still lower than expected; here is a
 comparison with recent years (all but 2007 numbers are the final
 tally number):
 ===================================================================
 ||    |Total # of|      |Valid|Unique|Rejects|        | Multiple ||
 ||Year|Developers|Quorum|Votes|Voters|       |% Voting| of Quorum||
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 ||1999|  347     | 27.90|     | 208  |       | 59.94  |  7.45    ||
 ||2000|  347     | 43.24|     | 216  |       | 62.25  |  7.74    ||
 ||2001|   ??     | ??   |     | 311  |       |        |          ||
 ||2002|  939     | 45.96| 509 | 475  | 122   | 50.58  | 10.34    ||
 ||2003|  831     | 43.24| 510 | 488  | 200   | 58.72  | 11.28    ||
 ||2004|  908     | 45.20| 506 | 482  |  52   | 53.08  | 10.66    ||
 ||2005|  965     | 46.60| 531 | 504  |  69   | 52.23  | 10.82    ||
 ||2006|  972     | 46.88| 436 | 421  |  41   | 43.31  |  8.98    ||
 ||2007| 1036     | 48.28| 427 | 398  | 206   | 38.41  |  8.24    ||
 ===================================================================

 If you have been waiting for the last minute to cast your vote, this is
 it. I would not advice waiting for the 11th hour, since mistakes
 happen: people forget to sign their ballot, send it to the wrong
 address, or have problems with their MUA mangling the ballot; leave it
 too late and you shall not have time to correct the error.

        So, if you have not yet voted, go vote.

        manoj

Debian Project Leader Election 2007 Results

Hi,

        The winner of the election is Sam Hocevar.

        I would like to thank all the candidates for their service to
 the project, for standing for the post of project leader, and for
 offering the developers a strong and viable group of candidates.

        Finally, I would like to congratulate Sam Hocevar, the
 Project Leader-elect, for his success.

        The details of the results shall be soon up at
 http://vote.debian.org/2007/vote_001.

        In the interim, the results are temporarily also visible at:
 http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/results.txt
 http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/results.png

  The tally sheet is at:
 http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/tally.txt

  The list of people voting is at:
 http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2007/voters.txt

Total unique votes cast: 482, which is 46.525% of all  possible votes.
 ===================================================================
 ||    |Total # of|      |Valid|Unique|Rejects|        | Multiple ||
 ||Year|Developers|Quorum|Votes|Voters|       |% Voting| of Quorum||
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 ||1999|  347     | 27.90|     | 208  |       | 59.94  |  7.45    ||

Sam Hocevar, is this true?

Re: Sam Hocevar, is this true?

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007, Matthew Blanc wrote:
>    Hello, I came across this link on a forum I frequent, and was wondering if
>    these allegations about sam are true?

   Yes. Everything you may read on the Internet is true, and it is
especially true of this forum you frequent.

Kind regards,
--

-- 
Sam.

Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

This is a proposed text for a GR.  I can't actually propose a GR (not a 
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar 
proposal.

---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by inserting at the end of clause 3, in italics:

(There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal 
documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived 
works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed.  This is a 
compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of legal texts to 
allow derived works.)

Rationale:
Debian is not in the business of shipping license texts; Debian does
so only because this is necessary in order to ship other material.  Many
of these license texts do not have licenses allowing the 
creation of derivative license texts; the GPL is a prominent example.  
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most 
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be 
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.

Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most 
discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.  
However, unwritten exceptions are not really a good idea.
It is more honest and straightforward to Debian's users to state the
exception outright.  Also, it prevents people from using this exception 
as an excuse to argue for other unwritten exceptions.  It is better to 
have all exceptions upfront, so that Debian's users know exactly what
they are getting.

However, Debian should encourage the licensing of license texts 
so that derivative license texts are allowed.  A license text which is a 
slight modification of an existing license text is substantially easier 
to analyse and deal with than a brand new license text.
---end proposed GR---

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is a proposed text for a GR.  I can't actually propose a GR (not a 
> DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar 
> proposal.
> 
> ---begin proposed GR---
> Resolved:
> That the DFSG shall be amended, by inserting at the end of clause 3, in italics:
> 
> (There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal 
> documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived 
> works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed.  This is a 
> compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of legal texts to 
> allow derived works.)
> 
> Rationale:
> Debian is not in the business of shipping license texts; Debian does
> so only because this is necessary in order to ship other material.  Many
> of these license texts do not have licenses allowing the 
> creation of derivative license texts; the GPL is a prominent example.  
> Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most 
> license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be 
> shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
> 
> Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most 
> discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.  

If that is the case, then why would it be necessary to write this down
in the DFSG? Personally, I don't think we need to go through all this
effort just so that nutcases can no longer use "But look, we do this for
license texts, too" as an argument. They're nutcases, anyway.

--

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4