headers
Bastian Blank | 1 Jan 2009 12:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
> relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the
> Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure.

I doubt that this a usable definition.

Do you think that the provision that a program is pushed into another
generic purpose cpu should always make them free? An imaginal system can
include several CPU types:
- Host CPU (lets say the Power cores of a Cell processor)
- Slave CPU (the SPUs of a Cell processor, different instruction set
  and ABI then the host)
- GPU (current NVidia and ATI chips can be filled with rather generic
  programs to do vector operations)
- device driving CPU (e.g. the MIPS cores of a broadcom network chip)

Only the last ones are usualy filed by the OS with a firmware and then
started.

Bastian

--

-- 
Yes, it is written.  Good shall always destroy evil.
		-- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho | 1 Jan 2009 15:44
Picon

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:01:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting a power that was *not* his under the letter of the constitution.

I still maintain the Secretary was within his Constitutional powers.  You have
a different position.  Both of us are convinced that we are correct.
Unfortunately, we cannot both be correct.  

In past times, we might have resolved this problem in a duel to either injury
or death - nowadays, one of us might sue the other in some court of law.
However, I would consider it a major problem if any internal Debian dispute
spilled over to the courts.

What we need is an oracle that says: "this is the correct interpretation of the
Constitution".  The oracle needs to be respected by both of us so that we could
agree, in advance, to yield to the oracle's decision whichever of us it favors.
(That is, in fact, what the courts are - and if one doesn't respect the
decision of a court, the system has the means to enforce the decision.)

The Constitution, as I read it, clearly specified that this oracle was meant to
be the Secretary.  It is clear that this approach does not work - you didn't
trust the previous Secretary as the oracle.

The one main problem I see with the Secretary as the oracle, weakening
his ability to maintain the trust of the developers is the following:

The Secretary is an officer with executive responsibilities (namely, he acts as
a chairman of the developers by way of general resolution, in fact but not in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Adeodato Simó | 1 Jan 2009 20:13
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:

> Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> > plan on ranking first.

> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order
> to get it voted on?

I can't believe I'm reading this.

You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because
the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide
what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns.

(On the other hand, I think seconding is different, and that it should
be okay to second stuff even just because "I think it's good for it to
be on the ballot".)

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

Que no te vendan amor sin espinas
                -- Joaquín Sabina, Noches de boda

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Bushnell BSG | 1 Jan 2009 22:49

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting a power that was *not* his under the letter of the constitution.
> Splitting up the constitutional powers doesn't really prevent the Secretary
> from acting counter to the constitution or counter to project consensus, if
> they're inclined to do that.

When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
you saying?  I'm having trouble understanding.  It is unquestionably the
Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
requires the Secretary to determine which options require a 3:1
supermajority.  How do you suppose he should go about this task, other
than to do his best job?

> I hope that our next Secretary will recognize the importance of not imposing
> his personal (and contentious) beliefs on the voting process.  If they don't
> recognize this, then I guess it's inevitable that we amend the constitution
> to limit the Secretary's power.

I am distressed that you have this attitude about Manoj's performance,
when it is your own decisions as release manager that have also been
called into question recently.  Would you apply the same standards to
yourself?

Thomas
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Ben Finney | 1 Jan 2009 23:17
Picon

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> writes:

> * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
> 
> > Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:
> 
> > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
> > > don't plan on ranking first.

(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)

> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> > order to get it voted on?
> 
> I can't believe I'm reading this.

I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote.

> You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> and concerns.

The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adeodato Simó | 1 Jan 2009 23:37
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:

> > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> > and concerns.

> The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
> much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
> They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
> second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.

No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one
unit unless painstakingly necessary.

This is, of course, my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree. Also,
I'll probably won't be interested in discussing this any further, so
please don't take my lack of answer to your next message as lack of
disagreement.

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org

                                        Listening to: Vanessa-Mae - Doun

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ben Finney | 2 Jan 2009 00:32
Picon

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Adeodato Simó <dato <at> net.com.org.es> writes:

> * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
> 
> > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > > because the people who do care about that option winning should
> > > get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete
> > > opinion and concerns.
> 
> > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least
> > as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was
> > proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own
> > wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything
> > else.
> 
> No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very
> scarce resource.

Agreed. I don't see what in my position you're disagreeing with, but
I'm likewise no longer interested in this side discussion as I feel
it's already resolved a few days ago. We can leave it here.

-- 
 \     “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to |
  `\    persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl |
_o__)                                                            Sagan |
Ben Finney

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Bird | 2 Jan 2009 00:50

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

Thank your for an excellent and insightful analysis.  I wish
to touch on just one point:

On Thu January 1 2009 06:44:24 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> What we need is an oracle that says: "this is the correct interpretation of
> the Constitution".  The oracle needs to be respected by both of us so that
> we could agree, in advance, to yield to the oracle's decision whichever of
> us it favors.

There is such an oracle - the Secretary - and every DD has
given his or her word to abide by the Constitution and
therefore to abide the decisions of the Secretary.

The problem was that a small number of powerful DDs held
Debian hostage by threatening to break their given word
and not abide by the Secretary's decisions.  To make matters
worse, these few did not raise most of their concerns during
the discussion period but instead waited until the vote was
in progress - an extraordinarily divisive tactic.

The unfortunate outcome is the loss of Manoj's services as
Secretary.  Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased
delegate and an invaluable asset to the Debian project.

Most active DDs have strong opinions and it not easy to set
one's own opinion aside and rule impartially as Manoj has so
consistently done.  Manoj's secretarial shoes will not be easy
to fill.

I am a Debian user and advocate but not a DD.  Were I a DD
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Michael Goetze | 2 Jan 2009 01:17

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

Hi Mike,

as a fellow non-DD Debian user and advocate, I feel...

Mike Bird wrote:
> Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased delegate

> I would urge the DPL to re-appoint Manoj

...that you've disqualified yourself from commenting on matters 
concerning the Debian constitution.

Regards,
Michael
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Don Armstrong | 2 Jan 2009 03:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> > and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> > options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
> 
> Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he
> should not have done that?

He voted 21 (FD over recall), so no. Of coure, that option had more
than 5 othere seconds, each of whom voted 12, so it didn't do anything
to cause us to vote on an option that we wouldn't of had a need to
vote on otherwise. Since 48 people voted 12, the K (or Q, 1.5Q or 2Q)
seconds could have easily come from them.

> I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not
> rank both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1,
> and proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that?

That's fine, since you ranked them both highly. There's a benefit to
seconding options which represent compromises that you support.
There's no benefit to seconding options which you do not, just to see
them go down in flames in the election. [If an option cannot get the
required number of seconders from people who actually support it, it's
almost assuredly going down in flames in the election.]

> In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane