I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -----
The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing
a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability
Directive' that addresses Debian interests in the matter.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS -----
Hi Bill
On 2023/11/24 19:14, Bill Allombert wrote:
I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -----
The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing
a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability
Directive' that addresses Debian interests in the matter.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS -----
I follow your logic in proposing this, although my interpretation of ¶5.1.4[0] in our constitution leads me to believe that the DPL does not need any delegation for this, so perhaps the intention becomes more of "Let the DPL decide".
In February I posted[1] about the CRA to debian-project[1]. My intention was to get a few good people to spend some time to focus on this, since my available bandwidth for this was low (and continued to be since then).
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to leave it as a DPL task, it might delay an actual public statement by a month or even more. That said, I'm not completely against the idea, if this ends up happening I would likely
combine the best current ideas in an etherpad and invite everyone to list
and hammer out any remaining issues.
I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -----
The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing
a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability
Directive' that addresses Debian interests in the matter.
----- GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS -----
I follow your logic in proposing this, although my interpretation of ¶5.1.4[0] in our constitution leads me to believe that the DPL does not need
any delegation for this, so perhaps the intention becomes more of "Let the DPL decide".
I agree with you on that point, but note that what matters
constitutionaly is that the DDs via the GR process has authority to do
it, and so have also the authority to delegate it, even to someone who
would otherwise have this authority.
The point of this ballot option is to differentiate from 'NOTA' which
can be interpreted as precluding from issuing a statement.
In February I posted[1] about the CRA to debian-project[1]. My intention was
to get a few good people to spend some time to focus on this, since my available bandwidth for this was low (and continued to be since then).
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to leave it as a DPL task, it might delay
an actual public statement by a month or even more. That said, I'm not completely against the idea, if this ends up happening I would likely combine the best current ideas in an etherpad and invite everyone to list and hammer out any remaining issues.
My view is that when drafting such statement, we should always keep in
mind what is its purpose. If it is to be read by the EU regulators, it
should be written by someone knowing their legal languages.
As I understand, the EU legislative process is quite advanced now, and
I doubt we have the time to build "the perfect response". And the
answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and consider
each bullet point we make --- While they are all important mostly *for
people quoting and making press releases* in the technical community,
the European legislative bodies will just see "oh, a biggish project
opposes CRA".
We want to communicate the reasoning as clearly as possible to our
peers and to journalists. But we want *something* to be issued while
we are still in the due time for the legislative process.
We should not just put out a statement just because others have done so, because
we might inadvertently propagate FUD.
On 2023/11/26 21:24, Bill Allombert wrote:
We should not just put out a statement just because others have done so, because
we might inadvertently propagate FUD.
Yep, it's a minefield. Anything we say can be used by a manipulative politician to make it seem that we support their cause.
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:06:42PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
On 2023/11/26 21:24, Bill Allombert wrote:
We should not just put out a statement just because others have done so, because
we might inadvertently propagate FUD.
Yep, it's a minefield. Anything we say can be used by a manipulative politician to make it seem that we support their cause.
In the same way that our silence can also be used.
Much less, because there have been other laws proposal that could affect
us and we have never put out a similar statement so nobody should expect Debian to make one now.
Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> writes:
Much less, because there have been other laws proposal that could affect
us and we have never put out a similar statement so nobody should expect Debian to make one now.
Yes. Debian is organized around producing a free software distribution,
not around legal or policy advocacy. It is normal that organizations that are not involved in politics (particularly transnational volunteer organizations like Debian) don't try to comment on legislation in
particular jurisdictions. This is not something that I think we should normally do. We should have exceptional clarity about our position and a clear alignment between the legislation and Debian's interests before we consider making a statement.
I think it's *possible* that condition applies here, but I'm dubious.
I've previously supported Debian making other essentially political statements and was subsequently convinced that I was probably wrong to do
so.
Given that, if we say anything at all, I would prefer to make as minimal
and focused of a statement as possible, staying well within our area of direct expertise and not getting into analysis of the meaning of
legislation. While there are people within the Debian Project who are qualified to do that, the *project* is not, and there are other advocacy organizations that do this type of lobbying regularly who are better-positioned to analyze the legislation in detail and provide
feedback from a free software perspective.
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing
political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a GR.
This, however, _is_ something I want to insist on: I don't think we
should fear GRs. I am of the opinion that we should hold more GRs, that
they should guide and aid more of our project decisions -- GRs should
not be divisive or "nuclear", but a tool for gauging project acceptance
of an idea.
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing
political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a
GR.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a
GR.
The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else.
We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on
issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to
work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement.
And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads
to more fracturation of the project.
But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian
goal ?
But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political
statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact).
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> writes:
But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political
statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact).
I understand your position, but I see this exactly in the opposite way.
Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a
GR.
The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else.
We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on
issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to
work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement.
Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in
nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least
aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact).
And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads to more fracturation of the project.
But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about
issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are
GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft
political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian
goal ?
I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be
put to the table.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a GR.
The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for
the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else.
We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on
issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to
work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement.
Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in
nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact).
One major risk for Debian continued existence is that we start to become suspicious of each other political views outside FLOSS, that we start to see "collaborating with someone as part of our Debian activity" as "associating" with them, and that "associating" with them start to become socially problematic. There is a precedent for that.
That is why I am quite against the whole 'community' view of Debian.
In practice, it is very hard to participate in such GR without revealing political views, as you can see by reading the discussion.
And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such
opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads
to more fracturation of the project.
But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about
issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are
GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft
political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian
goal ?
I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be
put to the table.
It seems like you are underestimating the risks and overestimating the rewards.
Such statement is only useful if written by people that understand enough of EU law terminology to address the issue. I asked whether the lawyer that drafted
it was familiar with EU law and it does not seem to be the case. We should not
make a statement that can be used against us.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a GR.
The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for
the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else.
We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on
issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to
work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement.
Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in
nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact).
One major risk for Debian continued existence is that we start to become suspicious of each other political views outside FLOSS, that we start to see "collaborating with someone as part of our Debian activity" as "associating" with them, and that "associating" with them start to become socially problematic. There is a precedent for that.
That is why I am quite against the whole 'community' view of Debian.
In practice, it is very hard to participate in such GR without revealing political views, as you can see by reading the discussion.
And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such
opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads
to more fracturation of the project.
But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about
issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are
GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft
political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian
goal ?
I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be
put to the table.
It seems like you are underestimating the risks and overestimating the rewards.
Such statement is only useful if written by people that understand enough of EU law terminology to address the issue. I asked whether the lawyer that drafted
it was familiar with EU law and it does not seem to be the case.
We should not make a statement that can be used against us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:11:18 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,786 |