Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #10008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-20 23:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> - 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-05 18:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-06 00:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2019-01-10 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 01:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-01-10 06:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 15:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 21:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-10 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 23:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Matthew Vernon <matthewv@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-12 00:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-11 18:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-10 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 07:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-06 23:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-07 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-07 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian <flackjacket5@tutanota.com> - 2019-01-07 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-07 19:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 02:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 02:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 04:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-08 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 16:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 03:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 04:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 05:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 11:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> - 2019-01-08 12:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 14:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 18:20 +0100
[OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian) Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2019-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: [OT] distributions without systemd Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-08 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-01-08 19:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-05 21:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-05 22:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 23:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-06 13:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-01-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-06 17:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> - 2019-01-08 13:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 02:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2019-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 08:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2018-12-21 11:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-12-21 01:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 12:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2018-12-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-12-21 04:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2018-12-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> - 2018-12-24 10:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-24 13:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-21 04:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-25 17:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 00:20 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 06:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 09:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-12-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-12-26 14:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 07:50 +0100
Re: Cyberbullying (was: Censorship) in Debian Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> - 2018-12-29 00:30 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2018-12-26 15:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-26 16:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> - 2018-12-27 03:40 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 17:00 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2018-12-27 14:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-12-28 08:50 +0100
Re: Censorship in Debian martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 2018-12-29 01:30 +0100
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 11:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdWkV-3lK-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10201 |
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: >What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly >states that: > >"4. Our priorities are our users and free software … >I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the >breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality >being in direct opposition to this principal. I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even "init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race. >>>Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating. Honestly I think you're very overdue to go. You've been in the Debian community for a long time. Long enough that you could have become a member (non-packaging, voting rights) if you had wanted to. I think you've made valuable contributions to our project, particularly in some of your posts to debian-user. But from what I've read from you recently, I think it would be in your own best interests to move on and establish yourself in a community more aligned with your beliefs and tastes. You wouldn't be alone, other long-time valued Debian contributors have done that in the wake of the init system decision. And in my opinion, your more recent mailing lists contributions to Debian have not been as valuable as ones from the past: case in point, this thread. We're raking over old coals here, and it's not helping you, or Debian. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdWNX-3Lw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10204 |
On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly >> states that: >> >> "4. Our priorities are our users and free software > … >> I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the >> breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality >> being in direct opposition to this principal. > > I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There > wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all > users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even > "init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the > best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a > different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got > the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race. Differing opinions here. Somehow, major changes in direction, that go against "the Unix way," and have direct impact on both systems administration & upstream development, seem not to be in the interests of many users. The systemd rollout just broke too many things. But I brought this up primarily in context of discussing Debian decision processes, and as a rebuttal to a previous statement that effectively said only contributor's opinions count - whereas the social contract explicitly says that users are a highest priority. > >>>> Pretty soon, I expect I'll be migrating. > > Honestly I think you're very overdue to go. You've been in the Debian > community for a long time. Long enough that you could have become a > member (non-packaging, voting rights) if you had wanted to. I think > you've made valuable contributions to our project, particularly in some > of your posts to debian-user. But from what I've read from you recently, > I think it would be in your own best interests to move on and establish > yourself in a community more aligned with your beliefs and tastes. You > wouldn't be alone, other long-time valued Debian contributors have done > that in the wake of the init system decision. And in my opinion, your > more recent mailing lists contributions to Debian have not been as > valuable as ones from the past: case in point, this thread. We're raking > over old coals here, and it's not helping you, or Debian. > > Well, thanks, I think. I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been - I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature (along with what direction several key server-side applications, on which we depend, go). Meanwhile, there's no reason not to continue responding to questions, where I can add value. The discussion about the censorship issues, and toxic processes, is one that's near and dear to my heart - having been involved in governance of various organizations and projects, and working professional on projects that involve online decision & deliberation support. Best, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdXAl-4hM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10205 |
On 2019-01-08 11:23, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states that: >>> >>> "4. Our priorities are our users and free software >> … >>> I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality being in direct opposition to this principal. >> >> I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There >> wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all >> users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even >> "init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the >> best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a >> different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got >> the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race. > > Differing opinions here. Somehow, major changes in direction, that go > against "the Unix way," and have direct impact on both systems > administration & upstream development, seem not to be in the interests > of many users. There are no differing opinions here. Jonathan clearly acknowledged your position. He then pointed out that other positions existed, and that no answer unanimously in the interest of all users existed. You keep arguing as if only your position mattered. All positions were considered, a decision was made which of these served this interest of the users best. That's complying with the mandate to prioritize users. > The systemd rollout just broke too many things. I doubt that the systemd switch was even noticed by 95% of users and if, then I'd wager that it was a net positive effect. -- Christian Kastner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdZCa-5v2-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10205 |
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
> major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
> Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been -
> I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature
> (along with what direction several key server-side applications, on
> which we depend, go).
I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago that
I would be writing this, but:
Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen
awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but the
actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on a
technical level they seem to be doing good work.
Regards,
Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xe3cK-7Kg-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10214 |
On 1/8/19 8:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
>> I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
>> major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
>> Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been -
>> I've been waiting and watching to see how different alternatives mature
>> (along with what direction several key server-side applications, on
>> which we depend, go).
> I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago that
> I would be writing this, but:
>
> Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen
> awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but the
> actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on a
> technical level they seem to be doing good work.
Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to
mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it
stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as a
particularly strong Debian alternative for servers? (My short list,
right now is Gentoo, Funtoo, Devuan, and FreeBSD. I'd been hoping that
one of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but it's never
really happened. Hypervisors & failover, and replicated storage are
also high on my list).
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 20:00 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] distributions without systemd (was: Re: Censorship in Debian) |
| Message-ID | <xe4Lv-6d-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10219 |
Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16: > > I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago > > that > > I would be writing this, but: > > > > Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen > > awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but > > the > > actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on > > a > > technical level they seem to be doing good work. > > Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to > mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it > stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as > a particularly strong Debian alternative for servers? (My short > list, right now is Gentoo, Funtoo, Devuan, and FreeBSD. I'd been > hoping that one of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but > it's never really happened. Hypervisors & failover, and replicated > storage are also high on my list). I suggest you take Devuan related questions to the devuan mailing list dng¹. One may argue whether Debian's systemd decision process was similar to what happened now, but discussing distributions and other operating systems without systemd is clearly off topic on this thread and also off- topic on the mailing list. It does not add any value to this discussion and clutters the thread with unrelated stuff. That said, two of my server VMs run Devuan since a few months and I am happy so far. [1] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng Thanks, -- Martin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 21:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] distributions without systemd |
| Message-ID | <xe6tX-1c8-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10221 |
On 1/8/19 1:34 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16: >>> I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago >>> that >>> I would be writing this, but: >>> >>> Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen >>> awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but >>> the >>> actual Devuan developers I have dealt with have been lovely, and on >>> a >>> technical level they seem to be doing good work. >> Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to >> mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it >> stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as >> a particularly strong Debian alternative for servers? (My short >> list, right now is Gentoo, Funtoo, Devuan, and FreeBSD. I'd been >> hoping that one of the OpenSolaris derivatives would look solid, but >> it's never really happened. Hypervisors & failover, and replicated >> storage are also high on my list). > I suggest you take Devuan related questions to the devuan mailing list > dng¹. Topic change is definitely appropriate, my apologies. Comparisons of distributions, IMHO is within bounds. > > One may argue whether Debian's systemd decision process was similar to > what happened now, but discussing distributions and other operating > systems without systemd is clearly off topic on this thread and also off- > topic on the mailing list. It does not add any value to this discussion > and clutters the thread with unrelated stuff. > > That said, two of my server VMs run Devuan since a few months and I am > happy so far. > > [1] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > Thanks, Thank you. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xe5ey-vN-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10219 |
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to
> mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it
> stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as a
> particularly strong Debian alternative for servers?
I'm not running it myself. All I've done is had (positive)
interations with Devuan developers and looked and (and borrowed) some
of their source code. So I'm afraid you'll have to evaluate that for
yourself.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xe4Vc-p3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10201 |
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> writes: > I was watching the discussion on systemd fairly closely. I could be > wrong, but very little of the discussions over systemd seemed to reflect > folks who managed production servers, or kernel developers, or developers > of key backend software (Apache, MySQL, Postfix, Sympa, ...). Well, for whatever it's worth, I was managing Debian production servers during the entire period of that debate (and for about ten years previous to that). I was the primary advocate for Stanford running its central infrastructure on Debian, so I'm familiar with the problems and arguments for and against using Debian in that sort of environment. Some of the other major voices in that debate manage far large production deployments than I did. My current employer uses Ubuntu in production, not Debian, for many of the typical reasons why people use Ubuntu over Debian, but from the perspective of systemd that's basically the same thing. Ubuntu went through essentially the same transition that we did. I do think distributions have some interesting challenges in the future, and what our users are asking from us is shifting. Containers and deep dependency programming ecosystems are both becoming more common, Go and Rust take a far different attitude towards how to assemble system components than C and C++ projects have historically, and cloud deployments are becoming far more common than hardware deployments for many of our users. One of the simultaneously fun and frustrating thing about this field is that problems are constantly shifting, and new ideas and new ways of doing things are constantly arising. Debian certainly will need to change and explore new and different corners of that, and feedback from day-to-day users of Debian both inside and outside the project will be very important to understand how to change. But, if anything, I think being *more* agile, not less, is where we can improve the most. And, of course, always trying to find ways in which we can have it all at once, where we can: provide a broad and inclusive platform for making a lot of different choices, so that we don't have to pick the best choices in advance and over-commit to one way of doing things. Which, among other things, calls for init system diversity, and I'm very glad to see that work continuing (although I personally still hope that someone will come up with a great init system that has the highly decoupled properties that people want but that isn't sysvinit with all of its well-known problems). I'll stop talking about this here since several folks are saying that we should keep init systems out of this conversation, and I'm not really helping. You just raised some points about the social impact of hard disagreements, and about how decision-making works in general in Debian, about which I have strong opinions and really wanted to reply. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xe48N-8jV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10190 |
]] Miles Fidelman > Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of > the Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become > too "personalized." JFTR (since this keeps being brought up, otherwise I'd much rather we just let this lie): Ian was not chair of the TC at the time. Bdale was (and he did not resign, his term expired on December 31st 2015). -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd13j-1EI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10134 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello Russ, Scott, On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not* > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow > definition.) I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order to participate? Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different political positions generate reasons to support its spread. Economic libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good -- but different -- reasons to support Free Software. For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of freedom in software. Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political position that has more in common with other participants than simply the property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software? (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming from any better.) -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd1G1-28f-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10161 |
On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Russ, Scott, > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. > > > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not* > > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what > > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow > > definition.) > > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order > to participate? > > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different > political positions generate reasons to support its spread. Economic > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good -- > but different -- reasons to support Free Software. > > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of > freedom in software. > > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political > position that has more in common with other participants than simply the > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software? > > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be > valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming > from any better.) I think that's pretty close to it. Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a good thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing to take). I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to enable individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always so caring, entities be they government or corporate. I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad speech is almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost). I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but I think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement that someone who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it getting ridiculous. To pick a completely different type of example of the same kind of issue: Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum and maximum height. It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't economically or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition. All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be taken in the future. So that was longer than I expected and I think I understand where I'm coming from better myself. Thanks. My bottom line is that today is a very divisive time in the world with many forces trying to drive wedges between groups and force people into one camp or another and then 'hate' the other tribe. We'll be better off in Debian the more of that we can ignore. Let's focus on the things we need to focus on to make Debian great and ignore the rest. Another example and I'll quit: As a US voter, I care deeply about the results of the last US presidential election. If I'm arguing US politics with you and trying to bring you to vote in the future in what I think is the 'right' way, then your views on the issues that caused you to vote one way or another are really important. If we're working on Debian, as long as we can participate constructively in Debian together, it's irrelevant. So let's not be more political than we need to be to get the Debian/Free Software job done. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd2iK-2BH-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10162 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been > marginalized and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not > marginalized, but I think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my > concern relative to the CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's > broad agreement that someone who insists on an unfettered right to be an > ass (for most any definition) isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but > there's also a limit to how far the project can reasonably go in catering > to people's concerns without it getting ridiculous. > To pick a completely different type of example of the same kind of issue: > Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum > and maximum height. It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are > excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't economically > or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of > ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition. > All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity > Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be > taken in the future. I actually think the Diversity Statement does capture this, in the phrase: "as long as they interact constructively with our community". There are people from marginalized groups in our society that have been so traumatized by their experiences that they *cannot* assume good faith from white cis het men. That's not their fault; nor is it Debian's fault. But as a project whose membership includes an awful lot of white cis het men, if someone finds themselves unable to engage constructively around the work of creating a free operating system without blaming their colleagues for past traumas experienced elsewhere, I don't think they are going to find a home in Debian. (In truth, I think they are unlikely to ever make it far enough to apply for DD given the obstacles involved.) The corollary is that white cis het men who are participating in these wider systems of oppression should not be allowed to retraumatize those from marginalized groups within Debian - *including* by mocking or downplaying the significance of that trauma. It's a natural human reaction that when one white man sees another superficially similar white man experience consequences for his behavior towards people from another group while protesting his innocence, the first man worries he will also be unjustly persecuted for doing something that he didn't know was wrong. But just as with the #HimToo movement, this isn't supported by the actual data. Over two decades of Debian history and hundreds of white men, and only one has found himself expelled by the project for this class of conduct. This is hardly the opening salvo of some great purge. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd2LM-2M1-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10162 |
On 2019/01/05 23:24, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum > and maximum height. It's not fair that if that's your dream job that you are > excluded because you are too tall or too short, but it just isn't economically > or operationally feasible to develop, test, and maintain a wide variety of > ejection seats to accommodate the full range of the human condition. > > All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity > Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be > taken in the future. I want to start off by assuring you that I understand what you mean, but I can't think of an example of such a practical limit that would currently apply to the CoC, can you? The closest kind of example I can think of is if someone doesn't have access to any kind of computer, it's kind of impossible to become an uploading DD in such a case, and it's not that we're exclusionary, just a practical limitation. However, I don't think that specific one is even worth mentioning in a CoC, but if you have identified specific limits, can you share them? A CoC can always be amended or at least some annotations made to explain it. -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdfIZ-2m0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10162 |
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > > Hello Russ, Scott, > > > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond the core > > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). I like > > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. > > > > > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political project at its > > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever been *not* > > > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what > > > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably narrow > > > definition.) > > > > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is the > > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in order > > to participate? > > > > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very different > > political positions generate reasons to support its spread. Economic > > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good -- > > but different -- reasons to support Free Software. > > > > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free Software > > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite different > > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of > > freedom in software. > > > > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that > > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political > > position that has more in common with other participants than simply the > > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free Software? > > > > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be > > valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is coming > > from any better.) > > I think that's pretty close to it. > > Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a good > thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing to > take). I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to enable > individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always so caring, > entities be they government or corporate. > > I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad speech is > almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost). > > I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized > and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but I > think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the > CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement that someone > who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) > isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far > the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it > getting ridiculous. I agree with much of this. [...] > All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity > Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be > taken in the future. I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify? I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That rider is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are there precisely because there are indeed limits. What am I missing? -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdlY7-6g9-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10171 |
On January 6, 2019 12:29:26 PM UTC, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote: >On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:24:32PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Saturday, January 05, 2019 08:42:57 PM Sean Whitton wrote: >> > Hello Russ, Scott, >> > >> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 11:44am -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> > > Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: >> > >> I am concerned about Debian becoming over-politicized (beyond >the core >> > >> issue of Free Software, which has an inherent political aspect). > I like >> > >> that the diversity statement isn't anti-anything. >> > > >> > > Well, I'm in the camp that says that Debian is a political >project at its >> > > very core, and there's very little about Debian that has ever >been *not* >> > > political. But I realize this is an ongoing argument over what >> > > "political" means. (I think a lot of people have an unreasonably >narrow >> > > definition.) >> > >> > I wonder if Scott's notion of Debian becoming over-politicised is >the >> > idea that more explicit political agreement is being required in >order >> > to participate? >> > >> > Something that fascinates me about Free Software is that very >different >> > political positions generate reasons to support its spread. >Economic >> > libertarians, socialists and anarchists, for example, all have good >-- >> > but different -- reasons to support Free Software. >> > >> > For my own part, one huge advantage of participating in Free >Software >> > projects is the opportunity to come to understand the quite >different >> > reasons that other people have for upholding the same standards of >> > freedom in software. >> > >> > Scott, would it be right to describe your concern as the worry that >> > participation in Debian seems to be coming to require a political >> > position that has more in common with other participants than >simply the >> > property of generating reasons to support the spread of Free >Software? >> > >> > (I'm not expressing a view about whether I take that concern to be >> > valid. I'm just trying to see if I've understood where Scott is >coming >> > from any better.) >> >> I think that's pretty close to it. >> >> Personally, I have strong utilitarian views on why Free Software is a >good >> thing (proprietary software is a business risk I am no longer willing >to >> take). I also think it's important from a freedom perspective to >enable >> individuals to not be trapped by the decisions of large, not always >so caring, >> entities be they government or corporate. >> >> I'm also a Free Speech absolutist (almost - I think the cure for bad >speech is >> almost always more speech, not regulation, but only almost). >> >> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been >marginalized >> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not >marginalized, but I >> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern >relative to the >> CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement >that someone >> who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any >definition) >> isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to >how far >> the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns >without it >> getting ridiculous. > >I agree with much of this. > >[...] >> All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the >Diversity >> Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it >will be >> taken in the future. > >I'm wondering what makes you say that, though. Can you clarify? > >I think the code of conduct is mostly a "try to be excellent to each >other" kind of statement, with an "or else" rider at the end. That >rider >is pretty vague (on purpose). It was written in that way precisely >because I agree with you that it's worth working on making people who >feel they are being marginalized feel welcome; and the consequences are >there precisely because there are indeed limits. > >What am I missing? Steve's (vorlon) response was pretty close to the mark. I understand the claim he makes about engage constructively being a brake on the kinds of problems I fear. I'm not entirely convinced though. In any disagreement there is room for asshattery on both sides of the discussion. If one is evaluating if someone is engaged in harassing behavior, I think it's much easier to see it in someone you disagree with than someone you fundamentally agree with. It's my assumption that people who volunteer for the unpleasant work of things like the anti-harrassment team do so because they believe that there's significant problems in the project with harassment. As a result, I would anticipate that there's a natural tendency to be more likely to find extreme behavior unreasonable from an alleged harasser than from the reverse. Note that this fear is not specific to any recent events or current AH team members. I think there's a selection bias inherent in the structure. Some might argue that any such selection bias is minor in the scheme of other biases involved. They might be right, but that doesn't mean I don't worry about it. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdjjz-4zR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10162 |
Hello, On Sat 05 Jan 2019 at 04:24pm -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think that's pretty close to it. Cool. > My bottom line is that today is a very divisive time in the world with many > forces trying to drive wedges between groups and force people into one camp or > another and then 'hate' the other tribe. We'll be better off in Debian the > more of that we can ignore. Let's focus on the things we need to focus on to > make Debian great and ignore the rest. I think it might be more useful to think in terms of toleration of difference, rather than the act of ignoring difference, even if for many practical purposes the way to tolerate difference will be to ignore it. Doing nothing more than ignoring difference might lead to a reluctance to take positive steps to address some group being tacitly excluded from participation in Debian. I'm thinking of those who argue that there is no discrimination against women in Debian. They often say that they simply pay no attention at all to the gender of the people sending them patches. But those of us who would like to take steps designed to increase the number of women participating see this as besides the point. The difference is between ignoring something because we have some practical end in mind, like an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation, versus tolerating difference out of respect for the intellectual and moral capacities of the other party. (Yes, I appreciate I've mixed together differences of political opinion and differences of gender in this e-mail, but that's because I take it to be good for us to be diverse along both of those axes.) -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martín Ferrari <tincho@tincho.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdYmL-4O9-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10162 |
On 05/01/2019 21:24, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized > and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but I > think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the > CoC). Not everyone can be accommodated. There's broad agreement that someone > who insists on an unfettered right to be an ass (for most any definition) > isn't going to be made to feel welcome, but there's also a limit to how far > the project can reasonably go in catering to people's concerns without it > getting ridiculous. Replying in a purely personal fashion here. For full disclosure, let me say that I belong to a couple of minorities, while also enjoying the benefits of other important privileges. I consider myself some kind of social justice advocate, and I profoundly believe in fostering diversity and protecting the most vulnerable people in society. At the same time, I am full aware that being oppressed does not make you immune from being an asshole. And I also believe that there are people out there requesting ridiculous accommodations, or even using the goals of social justice for personal benefit. Myself, I have been on the receiving end of that kind of people, and so I can completely understand what you are saying here. > Military pilots of aircraft with ejection seats are limited both to a minimum > and maximum height. Yup. And I would not even be able to be a commercial pilot because of my eyesight, and many things like that. I think those are reasonable. > All accommodations have practical limits. In my reading of the Diversity > Statement and CoC, I don't see that recognized and I fear how far it will be > taken in the future. Yes, but I am not sure this is something that can be codified in a reasonable and useful way. The alternative is to trust the delegates to be "reasonable", and elect a DPL that might change them if they are going in a direction that you find too extreme. If you think about it, this is how it works in many places in the real world, with policies slowly shifting to the left or right and the window of acceptable discourse and policies shift too. -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcEq6-4Nk-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10118 |
Hi Scott On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is). > I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate > reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing that > did or didn't happen in any recent situation - I am trying to see if there is > some consensus to be found on at least how to talk about it). Since there were so many replies to your email without actually answering your question, I decided to indulge. I think what you're referring to above is self-censorship, I think this wikipedia page resonates with what you're trying to get across: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcET9-5cY-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #10136 |
Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> writes: > On 2019/01/04 15:44, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that >> is). I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about >> disproportionate reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so >> (I'm also not arguing that did or didn't happen in any recent situation >> - I am trying to see if there is some consensus to be found on at least >> how to talk about it). > Since there were so many replies to your email without actually > answering your question, I decided to indulge. > I think what you're referring to above is self-censorship, I think this > wikipedia page resonates with what you're trying to get across: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship Thank you, Jonathan. That was a much better response than my too-flippant one. Also, I never said this in my replies, but thank you, Scott, for looking for a less charged word than censorship to talk about this. I think that makes the conversation better. And indeed it's possible for communities to go too far and create self-censorship that is harmful and gets in the way of talking about important issues, so it's useful to have a term for this so that we can talk about whether Debian is close to that line or not. It was a good question and deserved a real answer. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web