Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13683 > unrolled thread

Debian sever ties with Google?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 04:10 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 06:30 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 15:20 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 21:30 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
            Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 23:00 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-01 14:20 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "Jeffrey Anthony Serio" <hyperreal@moonshadow.dev> - 2025-02-01 17:50 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 23:00 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2025-01-31 15:40 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2025-02-01 20:30 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-02-02 14:10 +0100
    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2025-02-06 12:50 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? thomas@goirand.fr - 2025-02-06 16:40 +0100
        Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Satvik Sinha <sinhasatvik214@gmail.com> - 2025-02-06 18:10 +0100
          Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2025-02-06 18:50 +0100
            Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 02:00 +0100
              Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 03:00 +0100
                Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 03:30 +0100
                  Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-07 08:50 +0100
                    Re: Debian sever ties with Google? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 12:00 +0100
                      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com - 2025-02-08 08:20 +0100
                  Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 08:50 +0100
      Re: Debian sever ties with Google? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2025-02-07 03:00 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#13710

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

At 2025-02-06T11:38:08-0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Satvik Sinha dijo [Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 09:19:59PM +0530]:
> > Guys come on what the hell. Since past few days all I have been
> > hearing on this mailing list is endless arguments sparked by debian
> > team pulling out of X.Since past few days you had been also bringing
> > geo politics into open source space. We all know when microsoft
> > decided to pull plug  on windows , for our older systems and one who
> > cannot afford buying new ones just yet cause it hadn't been that
> > long when they first bought their system we have to end up relying
> > on Linux that is our only hope when windows start slowing down
> > approaching end of life period.Debian is literally open source so we
> > can see what code is being put into it so it's no issues.
> > (...)
> 
> Free software *is* politics. Involvement in a global-scale free
> software project *is* by itself a political statement. No, it is not
> partisan- or country-specific politics, but it is an expression of how
> a group of people want to influence the way society works.

I want to amplify this point and build upon it.

He who tells you that an activity should be carried out without raising
matters of politics, is a person whose own politics are already
ascendant.

In other words, Satvik Sinha is a making a _political_ argument for
retention of the status quo.

People can be uneasy about, or opposed to, Debian disentangling itself
from Google for all sort of reasons.  I'm not interested in enumerating
them, but I do observe that making a "full disclosure" of one's
employment status with Google does not suffice to establish a lack of
conflict of interest.

I hear that Google's workforce and culture has changed a lot over the
years.  One thing that hasn't is the propensity of its staff to
humblebrag about working there as part of adding their two cents to any
technical discussion on any subject.[1]

You and your employer do not necessarily have aligned interests, and the
larger your employer, the less likely is _any_ overlap.

Don't take my word for it.  Realize it yourself after you're laid off.

My advice--not that I expect anyone to take it--is that if you work for
Google, don't talk about it _and_ don't participate in any community
decision making process involving the company in any way.  These are the
ethical things to do if you're involved with Debian.  If the thought of
this frustrates you, try to salve your feelings by reviewing your latest
pay stub.  And if even that doesn't work, maybe you're not working at
the right place.

Regards,
Branden

[1] Apple staff are like that too.  With Microsoft the tendency seems to
    wax and wane with a period of about ten years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13711

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:50:50 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> My advice--not that I expect anyone to take it--is that if you work for
> Google, don't talk about it _and_ don't participate in any community
> decision making process involving the company in any way.  These are the
> ethical things to do if you're involved with Debian.  If the thought of
> this frustrates you, try to salve your feelings by reviewing your latest
> pay stub.  And if even that doesn't work, maybe you're not working at
> the right place.

I respectfully disagree with the above statement.

1.  It is contrary to the principles for with Debian stands to exclude someone from 
participating in Debian solely because of who employs them.  This includes participating in 
discussions about Debian policies that involve their employer.

2.  It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose their connection to the 
company when discussing policies regarding that company.  Doing so is not a 
humblebrag.  (Doing so when discussing policies that have no relation to the company 
would be a humblebrag.)

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13713

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Soren,

Thank you for the serious follow-up.

At 2025-02-06T17:57:39-0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:50:50 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > My advice--not that I expect anyone to take it--is that if you work for
> > Google, don't talk about it _and_ don't participate in any community
> > decision making process involving the company in any way.  These are the
> > ethical things to do if you're involved with Debian.  If the thought of
> > this frustrates you, try to salve your feelings by reviewing your latest
> > pay stub.  And if even that doesn't work, maybe you're not working at
> > the right place.
> 
> I respectfully disagree with the above statement.
> 
> 1.  It is contrary to the principles for with Debian stands to exclude
> someone from participating in Debian solely because of who employs
> them.

I agree.  To be clear, I neither said or implied otherwise.

> This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies that
> involve their employer.

Here I must disagree.  I think your statement is equivalent to claiming
that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an ethical
stance with a poor track record of producing socially desirable
outcomes.[1]

> 2.  It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose
> their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding
> that company.

Then you and I disagree.  I think Google employees/contractors are
conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised.  Whether they
support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial.

If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_
Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you have
deduced why the conflict of interest exists.

> Doing so is not a humblebrag.

It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak.

> (Doing so when discussing policies that have no relation to the
> company would be a humblebrag.)

Yes, and this is the more common case.

Regards,
Branden

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-have-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13714

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> Thank you for the serious follow-up.
> 
> [...]
> > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies that
> > involve their employer.
> 
> Here I must disagree.  I think your statement is equivalent to claiming
> that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an ethical
> stance with a poor track record of producing socially desirable
> outcomes.[1]
> [...]
> [1]
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-hav
> e-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/

How does this statement be equivalent to "there is no such thing as a conflict 
of interest?" How does the linked article support your opinion?

> > 2.  It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose
> > their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding
> > that company.
> 
> Then you and I disagree.  I think Google employees/contractors are
> conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised.  Whether they
> support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial.

This isn't useful. You can simply choose not to trust what the person has to 
say and disclosing conflicts of interest would make it easier for you to not 
trust them. 
 
> If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_
> Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you have
> deduced why the conflict of interest exists.

Okay I'll bite here is some game theory:

Bit 0: false = They are not in support; true = They are in support

Bit 1: false = They are afraid of speaking publicly; true = They are not 
afraid of speaking publicly

Bit 2: false = They have harmful information; true = They have useful 
information 

Bit 3: false = They don't clarify their conflict of interest;  true = They 
clarify their conflict of interest

Note: If bit 1 is unset bit 3 is automatically false because they would not be 
able to disclose their conflict of interest without being able to speak about 
it

0000: .25
They don't support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful 
information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about, therefore .25 for 
avoiding harmful information.

1000: .25
They support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful information. 
Nothing happens because they don't speak about it, therefore .25 for avoiding 
harmful information.

0100: -1
They don't support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and they 
don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should keep ties with 
Google but their information given is faulty and it causes Debian to make the 
wrong decision, therefore -1. 

1100: -1
They do support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and they 
don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian shouldn't keep ties 
with Google but their given info is faulty and and it causes Debian to make 
the wrong decision, therefore -1.

0010: -.25
They do not support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful information. 
Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful information -.25

1010: -.25
They do support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful information.
Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful information -.25

0110: 1
They do not support it, they say something, it is helpful information, they 
don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should keep ties with 
Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, 1.

1110: 1
They support it, they say something, it is useful information, they don't 
disclose their bias. The person says that that Debian shouldn't keep ties with 
Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, 1.

0001: .25
Same as 0000 but if they did speak they would have disclosed however, they 
didn't.

1001: .25
Same as 1001 but if they did speak they would have disclosed however, they 
didn't.

0101: .75
They don't support it, they say something, it wasn't useful information, but 
they disclose their conflict of interest. The person says they think Debian 
should stick with Google but it poisons the discussion with faulty info, 
however, Debian caught it sooner because of the bias warning and still makes 
the right decision but not without wasting some time. .75

1101: .75
They do support it, they say something, it wasn't useful information but they 
disclose their conflict of interest. The person says they think Debian 
shouldn't stick with Google but it poisons the discussion with faulty info, 
however, Debian caught it sooner because of the bias warning and still makes 
the right decision but not without wasting some time. .75

0011: -.25
Same as 0010 but they would normally disclose their bias.

1011: -.25
Same as 1010 but they would normally disclose their bias.

0111: .75
They do not support it, they say something, it was useful information, and 
they disclose their bias. The person says they think Debian should stick with 
Google and the info is useful, but some time is lost checking if the info is 
still valid with the bias but Debian makes the correct choice .75

1111: .75
They do support it, they say something, it was useful information and they 
disclose their bias. The person says they think Debian should split ties with 
Google and the info is useful, but some time is lost checking if the info is 
still valid with the bias but Debian make the correct choice.

Now we take the averages using factory optimizations to analyze the result:

First bit (don't/do support it): 0.1875/0.1875 -> no change, no correlation. I 
knew this was going to be equal, as a control.

Second bit (don't/do say something): 0/0.375 -> a 0.375 point bias in favor of 
do say something. This is because more information is (more) good. 

Third bit (unhelpful/helpful): 0.0625/0.3125 -> a 0.22 point bias in favor of 

Fourth bit (undisclosed/disclosed): 0/0.375 -> a 0.375 point bias in favor of 
disclosing bias. 

> > Doing so is not a humblebrag.
> 
> It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak.

Just your strawman opinion.

---
Dovenchiko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13718

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

At 2025-02-06T23:19:11-0700, dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Hi Soren,
> > 
> > Thank you for the serious follow-up.
> > 
> > [...]
> > > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies
> > > that involve their employer.
> > 
> > Here I must disagree.  I think your statement is equivalent to
> > claiming that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an
> > ethical stance with a poor track record of producing socially
> > desirable outcomes.[1]
> > [...]
> > [1]
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-hav
> > e-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/
> 
> How does this statement be equivalent to "there is no such thing as a
> conflict of interest?"

It's impossible to say, because you dropped context essential for the
reader to comprehend the discussion.

Let's trace the chain of references and antecedents.

[you]   "this statement" -> [me] "(I think) your statement"
[me]    "your statement" -> [Soren] "This"
[Soren] "This"           -> ???

> How does the linked article support your opinion?

That people can disclaim conflicts of interest even while possessing
them, which is a form of failing to disclose them.

> > > 2.  It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose
> > > their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding
> > > that company.
> > 
> > Then you and I disagree.  I think Google employees/contractors are
> > conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised.  Whether
> > they support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial.
> 
> This isn't useful.

Useful to what end?  I offered an opinion, not a device or technique.

> You can simply choose not to trust what the person has to say and
> disclosing conflicts of interest would make it easier for you to not
> trust them.

One could "simply" choose not to trust what a person has to say based on
their having blond hair or being shorter than 2 meters tall.

It turns out that the concept of a conflict of interest is, contrary to
height or hair color, materially correlated with outcomes of business or
policy decisions.  I won't support this claim for you with a literature
search, but trust you to do so for yourself if you're curious, which I
suspect you're not.

> > If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_
> > Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you
> > have deduced why the conflict of interest exists.
> 
> Okay I'll bite here is some game theory:
> 
> Bit 0: false = They are not in support; true = They are in support
> 
> Bit 1: false = They are afraid of speaking publicly; true = They are
> not afraid of speaking publicly
> 
> Bit 2: false = They have harmful information; true = They have useful
> information 
> 
> Bit 3: false = They don't clarify their conflict of interest;  true =
> They clarify their conflict of interest
> 
> Note: If bit 1 is unset bit 3 is automatically false because they
> would not be able to disclose their conflict of interest without being
> able to speak about it

Okay.  You know how to set up (an elaborated) Prisoner's Dilemma matrix.
Good show.

[quoting the enumeration of 16 scenarios with some reluctance]
> 0000: .25
> They don't support it, they don't speak about it, and they have
> harmful information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about,
> therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information.
> 
> 1000: .25
> They support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful
> information.  Nothing happens because they don't speak about it,
> therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information.
> 
> 0100: -1
> They don't support it, they say something, it's harmful information,
> and they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should
> keep ties with Google but their information given is faulty and it
> causes Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1. 
> 
> 1100: -1
> They do support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and
> they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian shouldn't
> keep ties with Google but their given info is faulty and and it causes
> Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1.
> 
> 0010: -.25
> They do not support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful
> information.  Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful
> information -.25
> 
> 1010: -.25
> They do support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful
> information.  Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful
> information -.25
> 
> 0110: 1
> They do not support it, they say something, it is helpful information,
> they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should
> keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice,
> 1.
> 
> 1110: 1
> They support it, they say something, it is useful information, they
> don't disclose their bias. The person says that that Debian shouldn't
> keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice,
> 1.
> 
> 0001: .25 Same as 0000 but if they did speak they would have disclosed
> however, they didn't.
> 
> 1001: .25 Same as 1001 but if they did speak they would have disclosed
> however, they didn't.
> 
> 0101: .75 They don't support it, they say something, it wasn't useful
> information, but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person
> says they think Debian should stick with Google but it poisons the
> discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because
> of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without
> wasting some time. .75
> 
> 1101: .75 They do support it, they say something, it wasn't useful
> information but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person
> says they think Debian shouldn't stick with Google but it poisons the
> discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because
> of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without
> wasting some time. .75
> 
> 0011: -.25 Same as 0010 but they would normally disclose their bias.
> 
> 1011: -.25 Same as 1010 but they would normally disclose their bias.
> 
> 0111: .75 They do not support it, they say something, it was useful
> information, and they disclose their bias. The person says they think
> Debian should stick with Google and the info is useful, but some time
> is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but Debian
> makes the correct choice .75
> 
> 1111: .75 They do support it, they say something, it was useful
> information and they disclose their bias. The person says they think
> Debian should split ties with Google and the info is useful, but some
> time is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but
> Debian make the correct choice.
>
> Now we take the averages using factory optimizations to analyze the
> result:

How did you determine the weights to assign each scenario?  You haven't
motivated or justified them.  Consequently, even independently of
"factory optimizations" (a Google search [naturally enough] suggests
that this is not a term of art in game theory; if you can explain it in
terms of, say, linear programming, I'll be fine) you can contrive any
result you desire.

[outcomes of arbitrary selected weights using unexplained algorithm
elided]

> > > Doing so is not a humblebrag.
> > 
> > It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak.
> 
> Just your strawman opinion.

You are James Damore and I claim my five pounds.

Regards,
Branden

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13728

On Friday, February 7, 2025 2:53:42 AM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-02-06T23:19:11-0700, dovencio.doshorte@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Hi Soren,
> > > 
> > > Thank you for the serious follow-up.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies
> > > > that involve their employer.
> > > 
> > > Here I must disagree.  I think your statement is equivalent to
> > > claiming that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an
> > > ethical stance with a poor track record of producing socially
> > > desirable outcomes.[1]
> > > [...]
> > > [1]
> > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-> > > hav
> > > e-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/
> > 
> > How does this statement be equivalent to "there is no such thing as a
> > conflict of interest?"
> 
> It's impossible to say, because you dropped context essential for the
> reader to comprehend the discussion.
> 
> Let's trace the chain of references and antecedents.
> 
> [you]   "this statement" -> [me] "(I think) your statement"
> [me]    "your statement" -> [Soren] "This"
> [Soren] "This"           -> ???

Do you not know how an email chain works? I guarantee you that I'm younger 
then you yet for me, it is so simple no one had to explain it.

> > How does the linked article support your opinion?
> 
> That people can disclaim conflicts of interest even while possessing
> them, which is a form of failing to disclose them.

The events played in this article are not similar to this situation. In the 
situation in the article the Georgian partners see the conflict of interest but 
the president claims he has no conflict of interest.

In this situation he states he has a conflict of interest. That's it. Nothing 
happens. No one has called him out for claiming otherwise.

> > > > 2.  It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose
> > > > their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding
> > > > that company.
> > > 
> > > Then you and I disagree.  I think Google employees/contractors are
> > > conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised.  Whether
> > > they support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial.
> > 
> > This isn't useful.
> 
> Useful to what end?  I offered an opinion, not a device or technique.

You don't provide a reason why, if that is your opinion then you shouldn't 
care.

> > You can simply choose not to trust what the person has to say and
> > disclosing conflicts of interest would make it easier for you to not
> > trust them.
> 
> One could "simply" choose not to trust what a person has to say based on
> their having blond hair or being shorter than 2 meters tall.

Normally when people judge others on things that is out of their control is 
called bigotry.

> It turns out that the concept of a conflict of interest is, contrary to
> height or hair color, materially correlated with outcomes of business or
> policy decisions.  I won't support this claim for you with a literature
> search, but trust you to do so for yourself if you're curious, which I
> suspect you're not.

You assume I don't care. I asked you several questions with good intention and 
you just brush them off. I come to you with the very definition of curiosity and 
you (very stupidly) act like I can't care.

> > > If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_
> > > Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you
> > > have deduced why the conflict of interest exists.
> > 
> > Okay I'll bite here is some game theory:
> > 
> > Bit 0: false = They are not in support; true = They are in support
> > 
> > Bit 1: false = They are afraid of speaking publicly; true = They are
> > not afraid of speaking publicly
> > 
> > Bit 2: false = They have harmful information; true = They have useful
> > information
> > 
> > Bit 3: false = They don't clarify their conflict of interest;  true =
> > They clarify their conflict of interest
> > 
> > Note: If bit 1 is unset bit 3 is automatically false because they
> > would not be able to disclose their conflict of interest without being
> > able to speak about it
> 
> Okay.  You know how to set up (an elaborated) Prisoner's Dilemma matrix.
> Good show.
> 
> [quoting the enumeration of 16 scenarios with some reluctance]
> 
> > 0000: .25
> > They don't support it, they don't speak about it, and they have
> > harmful information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about,
> > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information.
> > 
> > 1000: .25
> > They support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful
> > information.  Nothing happens because they don't speak about it,
> > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information.
> > 
> > 0100: -1
> > They don't support it, they say something, it's harmful information,
> > and they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should
> > keep ties with Google but their information given is faulty and it
> > causes Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1.
> > 
> > 1100: -1
> > They do support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and
> > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian shouldn't
> > keep ties with Google but their given info is faulty and and it causes
> > Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1.
> > 
> > 0010: -.25
> > They do not support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful
> > information.  Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful
> > information -.25
> > 
> > 1010: -.25
> > They do support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful
> > information.  Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful
> > information -.25
> > 
> > 0110: 1
> > They do not support it, they say something, it is helpful information,
> > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should
> > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice,
> > 1.
> > 
> > 1110: 1
> > They support it, they say something, it is useful information, they
> > don't disclose their bias. The person says that that Debian shouldn't
> > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice,
> > 1.
> > 
> > 0001: .25 Same as 0000 but if they did speak they would have disclosed
> > however, they didn't.
> > 
> > 1001: .25 Same as 1001 but if they did speak they would have disclosed
> > however, they didn't.
> > 
> > 0101: .75 They don't support it, they say something, it wasn't useful
> > information, but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person
> > says they think Debian should stick with Google but it poisons the
> > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because
> > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without
> > wasting some time. .75
> > 
> > 1101: .75 They do support it, they say something, it wasn't useful
> > information but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person
> > says they think Debian shouldn't stick with Google but it poisons the
> > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because
> > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without
> > wasting some time. .75
> > 
> > 0011: -.25 Same as 0010 but they would normally disclose their bias.
> > 
> > 1011: -.25 Same as 1010 but they would normally disclose their bias.
> > 
> > 0111: .75 They do not support it, they say something, it was useful
> > information, and they disclose their bias. The person says they think
> > Debian should stick with Google and the info is useful, but some time
> > is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but Debian
> > makes the correct choice .75
> > 
> > 1111: .75 They do support it, they say something, it was useful
> > information and they disclose their bias. The person says they think
> > Debian should split ties with Google and the info is useful, but some
> > time is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but
> > Debian make the correct choice.
> > 
> > Now we take the averages using factory optimizations to analyze the
> 
> > result:
> How did you determine the weights to assign each scenario?  You haven't
> motivated or justified them.  Consequently, even independently of
> "factory optimizations" (a Google search [naturally enough] suggests
> that this is not a term of art in game theory; if you can explain it in
> terms of, say, linear programming, I'll be fine) you can contrive any
> result you desire.

I don't have to care much about the scales of the weights. No matter how much 
you change the scale, you always get the same result- and just to be clear the 
scale only. If you change the negatives and positives you'll get different 
results. Negatives are a bad outcome, positives are a good outcome.

As for not finding what factory optimization is a skill issue. Look at the first 
link:
[From: https://instrumental.com/resources/optimize-manufacturing-processes/
what-is-manufacturing-optimization-and-why-should-you-care/]
> Manufacturing Optimization is a holistic discipline that enables
> manufacturers to get from proto to mass production and beyond as quickly as
> possible, with as little waste as possible. It’s a data-driven embrace of a
> better way – one that leverages emerging technology built on the powerful
> shoulders of math.

Factory optimizations and, as you called it, "(an elaborated) Prisoner's 
Dilemma matrix," is the same thing. It allows you to holistically check ahead 
of time or analyze the past.

> [outcomes of arbitrary selected weights using unexplained algorithm
> elided]

Oh, look here, it seems I'm not the only one that "dropped context essential 
for the reader to comprehend the discussion." Should have known you'd be a 
hypocrite. 

> > > > Doing so is not a humblebrag.
> > > 
> > > It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak.
> > 
> > Just your strawman opinion.
> 
> You are James Damore and I claim my five pounds.

Don't care mate. 

> 
> Regards,
> Branden

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13716

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> Thank you for the serious follow-up.
> 
> At 2025-02-06T17:57:39-0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:50:50 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > My advice--not that I expect anyone to take it--is that if you work for
> > > Google, don't talk about it _and_ don't participate in any community
> > > decision making process involving the company in any way.  These are the
> > > ethical things to do if you're involved with Debian.  If the thought of
> > > this frustrates you, try to salve your feelings by reviewing your latest
> > > pay stub.  And if even that doesn't work, maybe you're not working at
> > > the right place.
> > 
> > I respectfully disagree with the above statement.
> > 
> > 1.  It is contrary to the principles for with Debian stands to exclude
> > someone from participating in Debian solely because of who employs
> > them.
> 
> I agree.  To be clear, I neither said or implied otherwise.
> 
> > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies that
> > involve their employer.
> 
> Here I must disagree.  I think your statement is equivalent to claiming
> that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an ethical
> stance with a poor track record of producing socially desirable
> outcomes.[1]

That is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that when it comes to discussions in 
Debian, they are evaluated on the merits of the claims.  If someone makes a bad 
argument, it will be refuted by others based on its bad merits.  If someone makes a good 
argument, it will be accepted by the project based on its good merits.

Whatever conflict of interest exists by a Google employee participating in the discussion is 
adequately handled by their announcing their status as an employee, which alerts me to 
read over their argument carefully looking for anything that would unfairly benefit 
Google.  After I have made that careful review, if they have made a good argument, then it 
should receive the same consideration as any argument presented by any other member 
of the Debian community.

Debian’s democratic decision making processes are strong enough to resist any hidden 
infiltration by conflicts of interest with Google.  Of that I have no doubt.  So, I don’t need to 
fear being exposed to the best arguments anyone can make in Google’s favor.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13712

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:32:21AM -0000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> roberto@debian.org wrote:
> 
> >Since we as a project have left Twitter/X (as recently announced by our
> >Publicity Team) on the basis of "We do not want to be present in a place
> >where we cannot ensure that users will be respected and where abuse
> >happens without consequences" [0] [1], I would like start a discussion
> >about how we as a project can promptly sever ties with Google.
> I have not been abused by Google and it generally does not appear to be
> nazi-adjacent like Twitter, so I am good with our relationship with them.
> 
How fortunate you are. Perhaps we can set the project's priorities based
only how they affect you personally.

> >Yet, Google has for a long time closely collaborated with the United
> >States Government, specifically with the Defense and Intellence arms.
> If you are concerned about this then I recommend that you also reflect
> on Debian preparing to cheerfully welcome a LoongArch port, which is
> obviously a tool of Chinese soft power.
> 
Maybe when we get past the Google discussion.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web