On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:05 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ...Due to unfortunate [1]circumstances the weekly > newsletter stopped being released weekly > > 1. http://www.dunc-tank.org/ Give it a rest alright, won't you? Geez... Drew
Drew Parsons <dparsons <at> debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:05 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > ...Due to unfortunate [1]circumstances the weekly > > newsletter stopped being released weekly > > > > 1. http://www.dunc-tank.org/ > > Give it a rest alright, won't you? Geez... Give it a rest yourself. It is fairly important for the introduction of Debian Weekly News to explain why it is no longer Weekly. Regards, -- -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 10:14 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > [...] It is fairly important for the introduction > of Debian Weekly News to explain why it is no longer Weekly. To get that, just check out the link under [2] in the latest issue of DWN (released Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:05:03 +0100 (CET)) Regards -- hgb
Hans-Georg Bork <hgb <at> hgbhome.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 10:14 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > [...] It is fairly important for the introduction > > of Debian Weekly News to explain why it is no longer Weekly. > > To get that, just check out the link under [2] in the latest issue of > DWN (released Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:05:03 +0100 (CET)) I'm not sure which was [2] in the version you read, but that sounds like firing up a web browser and visiting another site, rather than a short explanation *in* the introduction. Joey funded a lot of DWN work, so has quite some control, and few complained about it until he was demotivated by money. So, each edition's leader includes passing mentions of why the Weekly isn't weekly any more. As news reporting, it would be fair for DWN to point out all negative effects of dunc-tank - which are going to last long after the end of their funding - and I think Joey has been quite restrained, given his strong views on it. Personally, I'd like to see DWN point out more things that have fallen off due to Dunc-Tank, ready for the evaluation. Dunc-tank's supporters have steadfastly refused to tell how they think we can measure whether or not the so-called experiment has been successful. I expect much hand-waving in the coming months and I hope that the debian media will help scrutinise the DPL on this. Do people have a problem with how funding can be used to control the project from half-outside the community at the minute? If so, take it up with debian-release and dunc-tank... Regards,(Continue reading)
Perhaps you prefer to see Debian releases late than to see the Weekly News published every week plus a day or two?
Drew Parsons <dparsons <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:05 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > ...Due to unfortunate [1]circumstances the weekly
> > newsletter stopped being released weekly
> >
> > 1. http://www.dunc-tank.org/
>
> Give it a rest alright, won't you? Geez...
Give it a rest yourself. It is fairly important for the introduction
of Debian Weekly News to explain why it is no longer Weekly.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Baz <bazciscor <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you prefer to see Debian releases late than to see the Weekly News > published every week plus a day or two? I like to see debian release when it is ready and I don't care when the Weekly News appears. Perhaps you prefer to sell Debian leadership for money, any money, rather than to build consensus among Debian developers on how to support it equitably? Regards, -- -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
I prefer to see "etch" released in a timely manner - I prefer to see the DWN released weekly in the same excellent degree. An organization such as The Debian Project can certainly do both. Anthony Towns et al, have come up with something (anything) to try and solve a major problem. Do I acknowledge that money may have a corrupting influence? Yes I do. Do I believe it has corrupted the process in question?
Baz < bazciscor <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you prefer to see Debian releases late than to see the Weekly News
> published every week plus a day or two?
I like to see debian release when it is ready and I don't care when
the Weekly News appears.
Perhaps you prefer to sell Debian leadership for money, any money,
rather than to build consensus among Debian developers on how to
support it equitably?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Baz <bazciscor <at> gmail.com> writes: > I prefer to see "etch" released in a timely manner - I prefer to see the > DWN released weekly in the same excellent degree. An organization such > as The Debian Project can certainly do both. Anthony Towns et al, have > come up with something (anything) to try and solve a major problem. Do > I acknowledge that money may have a corrupting influence? Yes I do. Do > I believe it has corrupted the process in question? > The question is - what can be done to reconcile the conflicting > concerns? The best thing that can be done to reconcile the conflicting concerns right now, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all of us to stop telling other people what to do. That applies across the board: stop telling other people how to spend their money, stop telling other people how to structure their time, stop involving ourselves in the personal decisions of other developers unless invited to do so, stop looking behind every action for a whiff of conspiracy, stop psychoanalyzing each other, stop criticizing each other for our emotions, stop reacting when other people do. Just stop. Let everyone work on Debian in their own fashion, in their own way, and take their contributions at face value and move on. Some people will stop working for whatever reason, including anger at what other people have chosen to do with their money or how other people have chosen to accept money. Some people will increase their effort. All of us are *very* different, are coming from extremely different cultures and sets of concerns, and have very different personal arrangements of work/life balance, employment, funding, and work structure. We need to give each other space to be ourselves while working on Debian and not try to force Debian Developers into any particular model. There are too many of us for that. This doesn't solve all of the problems, and I'm not saying that the concerns raised can be dismissed as simply as just letting them go, but it would give us a cooling off period and some space to focus on the work rather than on the politics, and I for one would really appreciate that right now. -- -- Russ Allbery (rra <at> debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:00:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Baz <bazciscor <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > I prefer to see "etch" released in a timely manner - I prefer to see the > > DWN released weekly in the same excellent degree. An organization such > > as The Debian Project can certainly do both. Anthony Towns et al, have > > come up with something (anything) to try and solve a major problem. Do > > I acknowledge that money may have a corrupting influence? Yes I do. Do > > I believe it has corrupted the process in question? > > > The question is - what can be done to reconcile the conflicting > > concerns? > > The best thing that can be done to reconcile the conflicting concerns > right now, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all of us to stop telling > other people what to do. This would start by rescinding the Vancouver proposal, and generally not conflating executive and legislative power. Cheers, -- -- Bill. <ballombe <at> debian.org> Imagine a small pink swirl here.
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:00:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> >> The best thing that can be done to reconcile the conflicting concerns >> right now, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all of us to stop telling >> other people what to do. > >This would start by rescinding the Vancouver proposal, and generally >not conflating executive and legislative power. What on earth are you babbling about? -- -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve <at> einval.com "I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:00:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> > >> The best thing that can be done to reconcile the conflicting > >> concerns right now, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all of us > >> to stop telling other people what to do. > > > >This would start by rescinding the Vancouver proposal, and generally > >not conflating executive and legislative power. > > What on earth are you babbling about? Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some power, and this idea has apparently made him grumpy. It's good for all of us that this idea doesn't actually exist. Take care, -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran <at> debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 12:21:59AM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > >On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:00:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> > > >> The best thing that can be done to reconcile the conflicting > > >> concerns right now, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all of us > > >> to stop telling other people what to do. > > > > > >This would start by rescinding the Vancouver proposal, and generally > > >not conflating executive and legislative power. > > > > What on earth are you babbling about? > > Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a > legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some power, > and this idea has apparently made him grumpy. It's good for all of us > that this idea doesn't actually exist. I wrote power, not people. In every society, power belong to three kind: executive, legislative and judicial. Debian is no exception. There is no much point using Condorcet vote system if we are going to ignore Montesquieu. Executive power is the power to do stuff, legislative power is the power to write rules how stuff are done and judicial power the power to force rules to be followed. For example developers have executive power over their packages, but the Debian Policy group has legislative power to set up policies that packages should follow and the technical commity has judicial power to ensure the policy are followed. If we follow the Debian constitution (section 2): The executive power is split belong: 1. The Project Leader; 2. Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks; 3. The individual Developer working on a particular task, (like maintaining a package) The legislative power is held by: 1. The Developers, by way of General Resolution 2. The Developers, by way of Debian policy update process. (6.1(1), 6.3(5), Policy Process 3.) The judicial power is held by: 1. The Project Secretary. (7.1(3) Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution. ) 2. The Technical Committee; (6.1(4) Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). Cheers, -- -- Bill. <ballombe <at> debian.org> Imagine a large blue swirl here.
Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Debian Weekly News - November 28th, 2006"):
> For example developers have executive power over their packages, but the
> Debian Policy group has legislative power to set up policies that
> packages should follow and the technical commity has judicial power to
> ensure the policy are followed.
This is a completely wrong understanding. In your example, the TC is
able to determine the content of policy as well as to ask for
particular fixes to packages, and if the TC thinks that policy is
wrong or inapplicable or whatever it will decide what it thinks is
best.
Debian does not have the separation of powers you describe.
Ian.
Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> wrote: > Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a > legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some power, > and this idea has apparently made him grumpy. It's good for all of us > that this idea doesn't actually exist. In a way, it does, whether or not you agree with it: DPL+most delegates are the executive, DDs are the legislative, secretary+some cttes are the authority, but that is a view not agreed by all and I've seen it debated on-list since at least 2002. Another way of viewing debian's governance is a democracy / guild / do-ocracy split (which I think appears in Biella Coleman's dissertation). It seems unhelpful to simply deny those views, as it's usually pretty clear what is meant. In the other world-view above, Bill Allombert seems unhappy with the guild deciding things previously done byq the democracy. Has that got better or worse since Vancouver? Did Vancouver mark a structural change? I've not seen many good studies and surveys of debian recently, after a gaggle around 2004, some of which are linked from http://people.debian.org/~mjr/surveys.html Anyone feel like answering the point instead of abusing the viewer? Hope that explains, -- -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: > Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> wrote: > > Bill's apparently under the impression that Debian has either a > > legislative or an executive branch that exists and wields some > > power, and this idea has apparently made him grumpy. It's good for > > all of us that this idea doesn't actually exist. > > In a way, it does, whether or not you agree with it: DPL+most > delegates are the executive This would certainly be true if the DPL had the power to veto decisions made by developers, or issue fiats, or any other traditional hallmark of power. Since the DPL doesn't have any of those powers, that assertion doesn't make any sense to me. It has been jokingly said that the DPL could be replaced with a mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you try it?" > DDs are the legislative That doesn't make sense, either. The legislature is a subset of the population, elected to act on behalf of the population. DDs are the population. > secretary+some cttes are the authority I'm not sure what the 'authority' maps to in a traditional government, so I'm not sure what this means either. > but that is a view not agreed by all and I've seen it debated on-list > since at least 2002. Another way of viewing debian's governance is a > democracy / guild / do-ocracy split (which I think appears in Biella > Coleman's dissertation). This sort of interpretation seems more reasonable to me. > It seems unhelpful to simply deny those views, as it's usually pretty > clear what is meant. In the other world-view above, Bill Allombert > seems unhappy with the guild deciding things previously done byq the > democracy. Has that got better or worse since Vancouver? Did > Vancouver mark a structural change? Any decision by any 'guild' or 'executive' or whatever you want to call it can be overruled by GR. I take the fact that no GR has passed as a sign that people are not that upset about it. > Anyone feel like answering the point instead of abusing the viewer? Nice touch. Constructing a sentence that simultaneously dismisses the person you disagree with while crying foul that they're being dismissive is a nice rhetorical flourish. I'm sure it was helpful. -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran <at> debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:46:37 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> said: > It has been jokingly said that the DPL could be replaced with a > mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a good idea. Why don't > you try it?" That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you try it? ;)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:46:37PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > It has been jokingly said that the DPL > could be replaced with a mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a > good idea. Why don't you try it?" Wow, that sounds like a good idea! Cheers, aj
Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:46:37PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: >> It has been jokingly said that the DPL >> could be replaced with a mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a >> good idea. Why don't you try it?" > Wow, that sounds like a good idea! Why don't we try it? Marc -- -- Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt 24: Future Computer Whiz Kids Energy Mobilizer Kühlschrank mit Cola und Kartoffelchips drin. (Peter Berlich)
On 2006-12-07T13:06:17+0100 (Thursday), Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:46:37PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > >> It has been jokingly said that the DPL > >> could be replaced with a mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a > >> good idea. Why don't you try it?" > > Wow, that sounds like a good idea! > Why don't we try it? Because you're cheaper than a mailbot. -towo -- -- I don't like calling it UTF-16. It should be WTF-8.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:46:37PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
>>> It has been jokingly said that the DPL
>>> could be replaced with a mailbot that just replies "That sounds like a
>>> good idea. Why don't you try it?"
>> Wow, that sounds like a good idea!
>
> Why don't we try it?
I think the problem is recursive.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
--
http://fam-tille.de
On 12/6/06, Stephen Gran <sgran <at> debian.org> wrote: > > DDs are the legislative > That doesn't make sense, either. The legislature is a subset of the > population, elected to act on behalf of the population. DDs are the > population. Uhm, that seems a bit DD-centric to me. Debian is not only about DDs, you know. There are *users* who are not DDs. So, the population would be all the people that use Debian, be it DDs or not. So, in that sense, the DDs might be legislative, in the sense that we make the rules, and the users have to live with them, and some times we take into account the users' wishes and change this or that according to them. We don't legislate much, though, so I think that calling it the "legislative" power is a bit of a stretch. -- -- Besos, Marga
Ok, I'll bite. Although I do feel this discussion as senseless, as there is no parallel between Debian and a real-world government. Or at least, I have not yet been visited by the Judicial branch or the Secret Services (Ouch! No, stop that, please! THERE IS NO CABAL!) Margarita Manterola dijo [Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:56:40PM -0300]: > >> DDs are the legislative > >That doesn't make sense, either. The legislature is a subset of the > >population, elected to act on behalf of the population. DDs are the > >population. > > Uhm, that seems a bit DD-centric to me. Debian is not only about DDs, > you know. There are *users* who are not DDs. So, the population would > be all the people that use Debian, be it DDs or not. > > So, in that sense, the DDs might be legislative, in the sense that we > make the rules, and the users have to live with them, and some times > we take into account the users' wishes and change this or that > according to them. > > We don't legislate much, though, so I think that calling it the > "legislative" power is a bit of a stretch. If you want to look at who legislates, take a look at who participates in the etching and patching of the Policy, and who drives the discussions about modifications to our foundation documents (Constitution, DFSG, SC). If you want to stretch it a bit, include the discussions on -vote previous to a GR. _That_'s tha closest to legislative we have. The DDs were, however, never elected by the "citizens" (users), so I can only position Debian as a social structure as a XVIII-century regime. It is extremely unlikely for a regular citizen to become a voting member. They consume the goods of our oh-so-very-hard work, but don't really have a say on our doings. Well, we'd better listen to them, if we want to keep our heads in close proximity. Don't forget we have at least a DD (hi, Evan!) that actually _uses_ the French Revolutionaire Calendar! Greetings, -- -- Gunnar Wolf - gwolf <at> gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
* Baz <bazciscor <at> gmail.com> [2006-11-29 20:55]: > Perhaps you prefer to see Debian releases late than to see the Weekly News > published every week plus a day or two? Now that is quite an unsubstantiated imputation. Martin -- -- http://martin.wuertele.net/ -- Debian -- OFTC -- SPI -- maxx <at> debian.org <youam> ich kann gar nicht so viel tun, wie ich nicht lassen kann
It was a question, not an imputation, unsubstantiated or otherwise...
* Baz <bazciscor <at> gmail.com> [2006-11-29 20:55]:
> Perhaps you prefer to see Debian releases late than to see the Weekly News
> published every week plus a day or two?
Now that is quite an unsubstantiated imputation.
Martin
--
http://martin.wuertele.net/ -- Debian -- OFTC -- SPI -- maxx <at> debian.org
<youam> ich kann gar nicht so viel tun, wie ich nicht lassen kann
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
RSS Feed