On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
page, inverting the way we currently do it.

I agree. "It just needs someone who does the work." (tm)

And if noone is volunteering, maybe we dont need/want it for real, after all.

Time will tell. Talk is pointless here, IMO. It just needs someone who does
the work, first.


--
cheers,
Holger

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄

We are done with ‘world leaders’. Countries are on fire. Cities are drowning.
People are dying. This is what scientists and activists have been warning the world and politicians about. It’s here. We ARE facing the impacts of the climate crisis. Forget about the future, it’s now.
fridays for future - https://nitter.net/fff_digital/status/1304520941012242432

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAmM8PDEACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhxhhg//WqI6+NeKqzyCfYb41fud5DQ3sVZfdBGXbHb98SoukWF6gaQtUNUqVC+F Wb0pd/Xu1nZ5/E81CNr7xG6s+lTiQ0af2bPoBpRZFBfj8ebimmOwiOAw/6+zupBk RM7W5qpXUsuJ6rGgaY6eHpYMcTGMIADjEquU9cwHK119wg96W6ZWho9oTgl4PZz6 FKo4/Y/BhY2IsyMiMd1H5nILJBpTFoWz2hZfdLx3mXbAIo+nxnZmSdRKNqkEU3e7 0RI3eBpGvi7wTGSTkbk1XPDKEWlSy9hBYCgE30urOqEctzjq4ohg0m6CyhqxM8ZP
29OwO9

Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):

The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"

The details of the results are available at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003

6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
installers".

Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes. I hesitate to say this, but it
seems to me that the hypothetical option "Change SC, recommend
installer containing non-free firmware" would have won if it had been
on the ballot.

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
page, inverting the way we currently do it.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ian Jackson left as an exercise for the reader:

6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
installers".

for anyone not doing the work of producing and staging two
installers, there was little real difference between these two
options (less potential confusion was the other argument i
recall). i voted for one installer over two because my
experience running a Derivative left me thinking work on the
installer is fairly esoteric, difficult to test, and something
you want to keep as streamlined+simple as possible.

so it would seem to come down to doing the work, no?

--
nick black -=- https://www.nick-black.com
to make an apple pie from scratch,
you need first invent a universe.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEmi//dHmU4oe+xCLxX0NADCHL+swFAmM8QN0ACgkQX0NADCHL +sxg7A/5ATfkAtOmzEzdhMM1is57Y+I0Z+53dv+4lRfLHvkxhc1JbIajc0MbJtHy AmkrwaNJ8ZbPVr8yIPg0CYmUWKKxFyMWLC6np4ynCGjgHxTwqBrEPM2LUwpDCX3p jQbCTQ0biRH4L08vPe3ULS+afxddKzW3LZA00A+nkEA3ZFBYg6MlXis4GmW1bGEp oqZ2xabDdWx6LvmDr0MellDeijZj0VNVncXhoqVggJoR5lw0Bv+Tj2f8z2rvIgwX 6REBvGe2l2jMtZZ4zKn67aB2O2bjQ8+rAMDRWoR4xNXH2Tl/HdwlVMPJ/+W6FsQZ 2zVsAlu0oaaZxSQ3tHJ/IGccE0wXVLj7wdtdtDSbzCK4iAXQbA6XPD4YPAHDUnr4 DWYPVbk3pGB/dtwM1PvadPUERAzIxD7IGKFKtB4aElq++G/3HTLEnZO3gItl/Q2E LXpqVk9R/MYAExjOY0OgDX6R724pfapKjjLzSANrnWL1Vy46gKfDbFSV5nBZvp51 q4MmSvqPO7r2x60Hn8C7aqNiSm89gyrdILZiNZdw39C9TS2Cn4sXs8JX8G8E4tNc vlN+fEQ0cMSzxTnWEXKJtKZQ8MJTA5ux8WNNvtMiWuR0b+CaZaYeQt8gjMpc2hMl FIvF498/ysJD6MN1ajciCP0tKU1Aw+OfnZPmmYX400n4+duGTrs=
=kBGo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet G

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
page, inverting the way we currently do it.

I certainly have no objections to that if someone wants to do the work
to maintain it.

I should also say, more concretely, that the winning option explicitly
says that this portion of the GR is a project statement on issues of the
day. The implication, in my view, is that this is our opinion today. If something changes (such as a team coming forward saying "hey, we want to maintain a free installer"), our opinion may chnage. It's not a technical decision or a delegate override, and we don't need to hold another GR to
change our minds.

(This is one of the reasons why I prefer to have every GR clearly state
what part of the constitution it's operating under.)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes.

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
by the Project Secretary. I prefer one installer (to focus our resources
and UX efforts), but voted "recommend installer" above "only one
installer" because of the constitutional concerns.

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer to
do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official page, inverting the way we currently do it.

I certainly have no objections to that if someone wants to do the work to maintain it.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
to do so.

Nod. As I said in my mail and blog at the weekend, my aim is to leave
the options in code and config available to support that.

Cool, thanks. (Somehow I am rather behind on planet.d.o)

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
by the Project Secretary. I prefer one installer (to focus our resources
and UX efforts), but voted "recommend installer" above "only one
installer" because of the constitutional concerns.

You make a very good point.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):

The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"

The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003

6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
installers".

Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes. I hesitate to say this, but it
seems to me that the hypothetical option "Change SC, recommend
installer containing non-free firmware" would have won if it had been
on the ballot.

Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
to do so.

Nod. As I said in my mail and blog at the weekend, my aim is to leave
the options in code and config available to support that.

I think we might even want to link to it from the official page,
inverting the way we currently do it.

Maybe, let's see how it goes.

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 at 16:34:27 +0200, Philip Hands wrote:

I didn't want to inflict work on the debian-cd
team, and I assume that nobody will object if volunteers turn up to help build/test the free images. If they're built and tested, I'm pretty sure they'll be published.

As one of the people who sometimes helps Steve to test CD releases (but
not a debian-cd team member):

I suspect that one of the motivations for not wanting two sets of images
on an equal footing is that building and testing images is a time- and resource-intensive process: by its very nature, building and testing an installation image or a live image involves shovelling a lot of data
around, and there's a policy of requiring at least the live images to
be tested on real hardware, because there have been cases in the past
where the images worked fine on a VM but failed on real hardware. Last
time we did bullseye and buster point releases, I left Steve's house
well after midnight, and I don't think that's atypical.

It would be a much less draining process if the combinatorial explosion
of things to test was smaller: at the moment we have netinsts, CDs,
DVDs, 16G images for USB sticks, Blu-Ray images, a live image per major
desktop environment (for some value of "major"), various paths through the installer, amd64/i386, UEFI/BIOS, non-firmware/firmware and so on. Not producing separate firmware and non-firmware images is one way to speed
this up by making the critical path shorter. I suspect the debian-cd
team might also be seriously considering discontinuing the larger
installation images like the Blu-Ray and 16G USB stick - certainly I
would be, if I was them.

So if volunteers turn up to help build/test images without non-free
firmware, I'm sure nobody is going to object to them doing that work,
but it might come with some limitations in order to take that work off the critical path of building and testing the primary deliverable on release
day, which will now be the version with firmware: perhaps something like
"yes, but only after the primary images are ready" or "yes, but please
build only the most useful 1-3 variants per architecture" or something
along those lines.

smcv

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
by the Project Secretary. I prefer one installer (to focus our resources
and UX efforts), but voted "recommend installer" above "only one
installer" because of the constitutional concerns.

You make a very good point.

I think interpreting other people's votes is very often problematic.

I voted the winning option first, despite a personal preference for
keeping the fully-free installer available.

The reason being that I didn't want to inflict work on the debian-cd
team, and I assume that nobody will object if volunteers turn up to help build/test the free images. If they're built and tested, I'm pretty sure they'll be published.

If someone builds them, I will certainly help test them with openQA.

If one of the options that forced the debian-cd team to publish free CDs
had won, then the potential volunteers for building them would not be
nearly so motivated to do the work, because they can just sit back and
let the debian-cd team do what they're told.

As it is, we either get more people to work on the CDs, or perhaps
it's not that important to people after all -- I'm sure we'll find out.

Anyway, I suspect the above isn't the first interpretation that comes to
mind of someone that voted the winning option top.

Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3/FBWs4yJ/zyBwfW0EujoAEl1cAFAmM9lfMACgkQ0EujoAEl 1cAWthAAu6uMmh/b8BXz3EEMSM3dpFotY7XZvvxiOX7srom7AqIlvb6w4Pv3wKFT WAJpYNipD91EXrma/vl6m0SN3QRuFDJtsxqm5Vxfn6OYxuxPDOBxeVEbLr1FBgE3 X4n0kMyuxliLoqviuTDKf7LhwESCCh/ZOapN9GnPEf5wvfOFqAfTTsk1UKoxddIK g8Q+Z40O53tXQHcpZpJeEReSZ3waTtUn8Cb+w5zbcSH+3CscV9DVZbMEpl6d/OKY VK8RNnm1VQpdi2yWQoS8s2yEEBBr92I9l1jSSfiozztc33o1qafGEcTAz/1Rg2D+ 1TPhdXoBKBZ7diGWClw+5OsX6/eiOLm0Dff5LkTk41UEvKwhrNGVTHN3bhkBV97W I00J/WUz48lPgC/KcYNOmWSBEX/pLycDa5PDIQauLoTtNJtwa3envR8ElgVAQKsZ 8BhxQqoG7upemu//8Y+4do+Kd3L7kXUgqW2SOGTGuzzHnTorNC79TV2+guwTr+4O 2I3X23P0oAPCkkwmQw/ODEWlU6rNxXk4BS/aqzwKgonrxHpm8XmCYruogbj83fuu +MNnoXcChTOZxNYK414XwaCK1sxYM7dxB2A/YvaMDKE9XT1EI2UwIzZN/+T08H0D zoqdKVJMk84Ecn3