A few weeks ago, Lisa and I were in Barnes&Noble, and I decided to buy a few photography books: The Digital Photography Book by Scott Kelby: This book is, as advertised, not a book about concepts and theories but rather about practical advice and tips. If you already know some of the theory, it’s pretty easy to see how it plays out in practice in this book. Composition Photo Workshop by Blue Fier: I love the name “Blue Fier”, even though I’m probably pronouncing “Fier” wrong (”Fire”). Anyway, this book started off a little slow for me because he covers things like aperture and depth of field and focus, and shutter speed and ISO and other things I’m already fairly familiar with. When he started getting into framing and rule-of-thirds type stuff it got more interesting. He also covered several different styles of photography (landscape, macro, portrait, etc.) and so it was a pretty good introductory book. Digital Portrait Photography and Lighting by Catherine Jamieson and Sean McCormick: I’m only half way through this book so far, and already it’s prompted me to spend hundreds of dollars on a new flash, and gotten me thinking about getting lights and umbrellas and reflectors and setting up my own miniature studio. I’ve spent the past few days trying to take portraits of Pixel and Lisa and myself, and haven’t had much success, mainly due to poor lighting (hence the flash and the dreams of better lighting equipment). When taking self portraits I’ve had such trouble getting the camera placement and focus and lighting right that I haven’t even gotten to really working on posing much. Which is fine, since I haven’t gotten to that chapter yet anyway. There’s a portrait workshop being held in Los Gatos at the end of September that I think I’m going to enroll in, but I’m worried based on the description that I’ll have already heard most of it from the portrait book I bought. In the spring I may enroll for a photography class at the local community college as well.

Neil McGovern recently blogged about the SPI election results - namely the outcomes using different election systems. While it is an interesting exersise, a point to note is that people know the rules for the elction and vote tactically. So to make the assumption that if SPI used a given system, then the outcome would be Neil's results is wrong. This point also applies to discussions of the use of secret ballots - changing this will change the election result.

I'll be 0x24 (hex) or pow(6,2) (dec) years old next Sunday and it is becoming obvious that I need to change my lifestyle. On the physical side I'm sure that I have to loose between 20 and 30 Kg. if I don't want to have health problems in the future. The plan is to change my eating habits and do sport regularly. The basic idea is to do a diet seriously and keep part of the rules more or less forever (that's the habits change); the other important thing is to do some exercise, I've never liked sports too much, but I'm sure I can try to walk some days and swim others (I've been going once a week to the swimming pool during the last months and I'll be doing it twice a week starting this September). On the mental side, I need to reduce my obligations and care less about the work problems in and out of the office. To reduce my obligations and have more free time I decided a couple of months ago that I was going to leave the Uni, as it was taking away a lot of time that I can use for more important things; I notified it and after this September I won't be working for the Universitat de Val ncia anymore. Initially my idea was to keep my main work and use some hours each week to work on my PhD Thesis, but the truth is that I'm not interested anymore; I don't have anything specially interesting to say and my main motivation for getting a PhD has also disappeared (at some point I thought about becoming a full time University professor, but after three and a half years I've had enough, at least for a looong while). This leaves me with my work at the ITI as my main and only work, but after some months I'm seriously considering leaving it also. My main problem there is that I believe that I'm starting to suffer the Peter Principle or something similar; almost all my professional career I've been working as a technician, first as a programmer and sysadmin and lately as analyst and team leader or technical manager, but now, as it seems to happen always in the Spanish IT companies, I'm being forced to move to a pure project management work and, to be fair, I don't like it. I don't know if that means that I'll get to my level of incompetence, but if that is the case I think I'll have to try the Peter's Parry, that basically means to refuse a promotion (I've already done it asking to get a place under my theoretical level, although not on a convincing manner, it seems) or use the Creative Incompetence technique, that is, give the impression that you have already arrived to your incompetence level (probably it is too late to do that at my current place, but maybe on the next one I'll be able to do it). Maybe this is not the last level of the Peter Principle, as I'm sure that I can and will do this work (I'm thinking about moving, but I will not do it until I have a plan for the future, and that will probably mean a new job), but I'm also sure that I will never do it as well as I can do technical tasks because I don't have any real motivation to do it and while I plan to get the skills needed, they are not attractive to me. I understand that on the current IT world we need to have project managers, and I really hate bad managers, but that does not mean I like to become one, I prefer to be a team leader and work only on one or two projects at a time, instead of having more than five and not do real work in any of them; my main problem is that the challenges and tasks a manager has to do have nothing in common with the things I like from computer science and I'm too perfectionist to handle people that does not care about how things are done in a lazy way (a team leader with a couple of projects can handle technical people, when you are a manager with multiple projects you miss the day to day perspective and problematic people is more difficult to handle). Oh well, we will see how things evolve. The good thing is that I believe that one way or another I'll end up having a better life and, if I'm able to care less about my own work (and the one done by others) maybe I'll be able to stay at an acceptable level on the hierarchy without getting burn out and maybe some day I'll be able to work again on the things I like and keep my promises.

I wasn't elected to SPI's board. I didn't think I would be once I saw all the other candidates (I nominated before all declared), but it looks like I would have been elected with those votes under some other common systems. I think both first-past-the-post and alternative vote (also known as instant run-off voting, reportedly recommended by Robert's Rules for election-by-mail) would have resulted in this same board:

1. Bdale Garbee
2. David Graham
3. Joshua D. Drake
4. Martin 'Joey' Schulze
5. Luk Claes
6. MJ Ray

Instead, the results were:

1. Bdale Garbee
2. David Graham
3. Luk Claes
4. Joshua D. Drake
5. Joerg Jaspert
6. Martin Zobel-Helas

Nevertheless, well done to the new members. On one hand, I'm happier, because there's still two of my top four there and now I've less required work. On the other hand, I would have liked a crack at it myself and both boards are disappointing because there's no Ian Jackson. An interesting thing is how many times I appear in each position in voting lists: (5, 1, 2, 1, 9, 6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 2, 9, 37), or as a bar chart:

1. st
2. nd
3. rd
4. th
5. th
6. th
7. th
8. th
9. th
10. th
11. th
12. th
13. th

A fairly acceptable middle-of-road candidate for most of it, but then a huge spike at the low end. Note that a majority of voters put me in positions 11-13. There wasn't much warning of that one coming during hustings. WTF? There seem to be some 30 or 40 voters who really dislike me, but didn't tell me that straight, preferring to be silent then vote me down. Are you cowards, or what? More generally, is this type of Condorcet ever likely to elect someone who polarises views, or who many inexplicably dislike? What does this say for any plan to use a Condorcet for debian's social committee? Could majorities always prevent minority reps? Update: Neil McGovern posted a few comparisons of more complex systems (I only did the easy ones) and AJ posted STV results which completes the main systems, I think. It seems Condorcet-SPI wasn't as unusual as I first thought. Finally, as I understand it, turn-out was 25% of voting members (not the 25% of SPI members that some press reported). Why was turn-out so low? (2007-08-08: 1 pingback, 3 comments)

I’ve created a page about translating my blog. Currently it has the following text: If you would like to translate any posts from my blog to a language other than English then please feel free to do so. I demand that any translations correctly cite me as the author of the original English version and give a permanent link to the original post, but I don t expect that this will cause any inconvenience. I also request that anyone who translates one of my posts gives me permission to do whatever I wish with the translated text (I want to mirror all translations of my work on my own site). I am unsure of what legal rights I have to demand this and have not yet considered whether I have a moral right to demand it. But I believe that it is the nice thing for a translator to do and hope that everyone who translates one of my posts will do so. Also I may grant permission for translations of my posts to appear on sites with Google advertising or other commercial use. I won t rule out the possibility of assigning monopoly rights on commercial use of the translations of my posts to specific individuals or organisations. Does anyone have suggestions for improvements? One of my multi-lingual friends suggested that I should be concerned about the risk of bad translations. But I desire to have people read my posts and I believe that this is a risk I just have to accept - I’m sure that there are enough multi-lingual people in the blog space to find such errors and help the translator correct them. Also I have to consider the best way to mirror the translations. I could add them to the same permalink page (producing long pages with multiple translations of my best posts), I could create a new post (resulting in English-language Planet installations getting posts that most people can’t read), or I could use a separate blog installation for the translations. Please comment if you have any suggestions. I’ll write another post in future with the solutions that I select and some analysis of the issues. Update: Thanks for the nice post Victor. It was seeing my blog in the list of “Enlaces Interesantes” on Victor’s blog that inspired my post about translation.

Share This

A couple of weeks ago, Intel has released the PowerTOP utility for Linux, a tool similar to the well known top(1) utility that can help you understand why your laptop battery runtime is as low as 1 hour. You need a tickless kernel (2.6.21 at least on i386, 2.6.22 + hrt patchset on amd64) for that to work, and timer statistics must be enabled. This is an extremely bright marketing coup from Intel, for essentially two reasons:

• with PowerTOP, they’re now telling “hey look, the CPU is in C3 xx,x% of the time, it’s saving power!!!” and have some real hard data to back that up;
• with PowerTOP, they can also tell “hey look, the CPU cannot reach the C3 state for long enough periods because foobar is waking it up too often! That’s not the CPU’s fault!”, again with some real hard data to back that up.

In that, PowerTOP is an incredible PR spinning tool that can shift the blame away from the Intel CPU in your machine to about everything else in your machine - including software! They’ve done extensive and intensive internal testing, which turned up some bugs and misbehaviours here and there, which is truly great. They’re also announcing incredibly low “CPU wakeups per second” values, so low that there is no way you can reach such low values on any kind of real world setup. These numbers must be seen in the context of lab testing on otherwise idle machines. On the “CPU wakeups per second” front, you’ll most probably see that the #1 offender is your UHCI USB controller. A UHCI USB controller produces a thousand interrupts per second, effectively waking up the CPU a thousand times per second even when nothing happens. So, now it’s all the USB controller’s fault! Ah, wait, UHCI is an Intel spec! (UHCI is a joint effort by Intel and others, Intel being the lead) Fortunately, to be able to put the USB host controller to sleep, you need to put all the USB devices attached to it to sleep too. Here comes the (in)famous CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND kernel option introduced six or so months ago, the one that makes (made, I’ve worked around it in SANE last week-end) your scanner produce only “black scans” and prevents your printer from working properly. So now it’s all the USB devices’ fault. Brilliant, isn’t it ? To be honest and complete, once again, CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND exposed a lot of hardware bugs. The USB spec is probably one of the most violated spec these days (together with ACPI I’d say, though it looks like this one is improving lately). Please don’t get me wrong: PowerTOP is a very useful tool that has its uses, the tickless kernel is of course a very important feature, and CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND would be the icing on the cake if USB devices weren’t so ignorant of the spec. But the Intel marketing crap behind that really needs to stop. Produce better chips which consume less power, period. My PowerBook G4 could run 4h30 on battery (a machine designed 7 years ago). My Core2 Duo MacBook Pro, with a slightly bigger battery, can only run 1h40 with the same software and workload, with cpufreq enabled etc, etc. Granted, the ATI video card is a big sucker here too. (I wrote this entry to share my thoughts on the matter, as a reaction to the many mails I’m getting about PowerTOP and the MacBooks, so as to have a reference to point people to, instead of rewriting the same things again and again.)

A recent thread which started on the Debian Release mailing list caught my eye this week. I attempted to aid the migration of this thread to the debian-ipv6 mailing list, which is really a better place for this and sorely in need of controversial topics for discussion. It is interesting how people can so blindly decide that broken things should be destroyed. Repair often appears not to be an option, even for a long-term, wide-reaching effort like this, though we are all working on open-source software! In this case there are an unknown number of less fortunate people in the world who are located behind some kinds of broken DNS infrastructure which discards 'AAAA' lookups. Of course 'AAAA' lookups are attempts to resolve a name to an IPv6 address, and the resolver in a 'modern' libc (i.e. one from the last five years or so :-) will try to retrieve an IPv6 address before it attempts to resolve a name as IPv4 with an 'A' lookup. That is how the standard is written, so if you want to comply with the standard you have to do it that way. Other things also interfere, but this element of the specified behaviour seems to cause the most annoying and pointless whingeing I have heard. I suppose that the people who want working IPv6 make it so, and do not have problems with this behaviour. But it seems that people who are behind this kind of broken DNS either disable IPv6, or they have to whine about IPv6 being turned on by default, and can't we please all go back to the good old days. What's wrong with IPv4 anyway? Doesn't NAT solve all of it's problems? Are we sure this new (heh!) technology is safe? Fortunately some people are so good at making their pain felt by other people that they can get other people to do their work for them. So Mithrandir has written a nice elegant patch for libc6 so that it won't do the IPv6 lookups unless you have a usable IPv6 configuration. I've filed bug #435646 against Debian to get this included, but Aurelian Jarno justifiably wants a few people to test it a bit harder... So I've taken the original patch and tweaked it to apply against current libc6 sources (2.6-5) and tested it for myself. It works as desired, as far as I can see, when comparing behaviour with an unpatched system. The patch is attached to the bug report, of course. Perhaps some other people out there can put a wee bit of CPU into testing this for other environments so that we can make life easier for those people with no time / inclination to use IPv6, to ensure that they don't just disable it because it is making life too painful for them in it's current form? How to build libc6 for fun and proft If you have appropriate deb-src URLs configured, and are running Sid, then the following will let you build a local copy of libc6 with the patch. This is probably better testing than if I just make my packages available (which are only i386 in any case).

apt-get build-dep glibc
apt-get source glibc
cd glibc-2.6
debian/rules unpack
cd build-tree/glibc-2.6
wget http://tinyurl.com/3xzm3o
patch -p0 <glibc-only-lookup-ipv6-if-it-makes-sense-debian.patch
cd -
dch --newversion 2.6-5+v6 "Apply IPv6 Resolver Sanity"
fakeroot debian/rules binary

Wait a few hours for it to build... Install... And then confirm that this only does 'AAAA' lookups if (when) you actually have a global or site scoped IPv6 address. When you only have a loopback or link local IPv6 address then you should only see 'A' record lookups. Step 3: profit! Whoops! I forgot the fun bit: please update the bug report :-) What the patch does In my opinion this is quite an elegant solution from Tolleff. He has picked a single characteristic of the IPv6 interfaces to further refine whether the IPv6 configuration of some interface is actually usable. With IPv6 it is much more common to have multiple addresses assigned to a single interface. Interfaces are automatically configured with a link-local address which is not globally routable, and the loopback interface is also configured with the IPv6 equivalent of 127.0.0.1 (which is "::1"). To get a usable IPv6 setup you will also end up with a more widely usable address. In most cases this will be a global address, meaning that it is (in theory) globally routable from other people who also have global addresses, or you could have a "site" address, which is the IPv6 equivalent of RFC1918 addressing. The patch considers that for the purposes of name resolution, it will be pointless to do AAAA lookups unless you have an address of the second kind. This means that people behind broken DNS won't be impacted unless the try and set up IPv6, and people who don't try and set up IPv6 won't get the 'hesitation' while their system attempts to resolve each address in IPv6 space first. It will also mean that when people start to enable IPv6 around them, their setup will continue to work correctly.

Bryan O'Sullivan noted over at the Real World Haskell blog that Haskell made quite the impact at OSCon. And I can attest to Simon Peyton-Jones having trouble leaving the building because of all the people that wanted to talk to him about Haskell. It was interesting to think about "why now" for Haskell's popularity. Bryan's post has links to the video of Simon's talks, which are great. (Sample quote: "Oh look, a whiteboard has appeared as if by magic! What joy!")

I followed Bryan's link to the Haskell/OSCon-related blog posts at Technorati. Here's an interesting one by chromatic, who gave some Perl talks at OSCon. Favorite quote:

I sat next to Nat Torkington at the tutorial. He kept rubbing his temples. At one point I leaned over and said, The interesting thing about Haskell is that its functions only take one argument. He turned green.

In all seriousness, well-factored Haskell code resembles well-factored Smalltalk code: if you have functions (or methods) longer than a handful of lines, you re probably doing too much. Lower level languages such as C rarely give the opportunity for composition and abstraction that you can get out of functional languages. The presence of pure functions functions which never change global state and which return the same output for the same input is also immensely important.

It s actually the combination of the two features which give these languages such power. When Haskell forces you to mark impure functions explicitly, it gives you tools to isolate behavior which can change global state in the smallest possible scopes, and prevents you from composing impure and pure code together accidentally. When Haskell lets you compose functions into larger functions, not only does it help you write code more concisely, but it provides well-defined units of behavior which work along well-defined and isolated boundaries.

So what is this business about Haskell functions taking only one argument? Let's look at a quick example. Say I wanted to write a function to multiply two numbers. I'd write:

mul a b = a * b

I could give the type of this function like this:

mul :: Int -> Int -> Int

You could read that as "mul takes two Ints and returns an Int". And you can think of it this way. But you could also write the type this way:

mul :: Int -> (Int -> Int)

It means the exact same thing and is valid to Haskell. To read it, you'd say "mul takes an Int and returns a function that takes an Int and returns an Int." And truly this is what Haskell functions that take multiple parameters are doing. Now, I can say:

fifteen = mul 3 5
mulByThree = mul 3
fifteen' = mulByThree 5
fifteen'' = (mul 3) 5


mulByThree has type Int -> Int; it's a function that we got by simply not applying "mul" to all its arguments. fifteen'' illustrates what is going on internally when you write "mul 3 5". It turns out that being able to call a function with multiple arguments is just some syntactic sugar to Haskell.

This is a tremendously useful feature. For instance:

filter (>= 10) [1..20]

I've applied >= to only one argument here. That's fine; it returns a function that's exactly what filter wants.

I've been watching the video of Simon's Taste of Haskell talk. I could *hear* when the audience grasped the utility of this because there was a collective "Oooooo!" from them.

By the way, Haskell has type inference, so I didn't have to give types at all. Oh, and you can also refer to the function itself by not giving any arguments.

mul = (*)

This is one small reason I like to say "Haskell manipulates functions with the same ease that Perl manipulates strings." Mind-bending, isn't it?

Firstly for the benefit of people who haven’t heard of it, the Advogato FAQ and the Wikipedia Page describe what Advogato does. Pete Zaitcev posted a strange article about me to Advogato. In it he accused me of “pumping hateful leftist propaganda into Advogato“, said propaganda being my regular blog posts. In an addendum he accused me of insanity, and said that my “attacks” were “divisive“. I considered writing an Advogato post in response but first read the Posting Guidelines which say:

• Please keep articles about Advogato itself to a minimum


• Personal complaints, rants, and flames belong in your blog, not here

Both of those criteria rule out Pete’s post and any response that I might make would risk being in breach of such conditions - so I will use my blog as the Advogato admins recommend. Pete’s ad-hominem attack on me claiming that my posts are hateful is bizarre. Pete, for the benefit of all the interested onlookers could you please inform us which of my posts you consider hateful and why you have such an opinion? As a general rule you should always cite articles that you reference. When you make accusations without any evidence to back them up it makes you look bad and prevents any positive discussion of the acts in question. As for the accusation of being divisive, that only happens when people are forced to choose sides. For example when you encourage other people to rate me down on Advogato because of my political opinions that can divide the community (in a small way, neither you, nor me, nor Advogato is important enough to cause a serious problem in this regard). The idea that I was intentionally pumping anything into Advogato was also strange to me. When I entered the URL for my blog into the Advogato settings page I didn’t even realise that it was being syndicated until I reviewed my web logs some time later. It seems that Advogato only has a small number of readers, a recent post about strange ZCAV performance included a graph and judging by the referrer tags it seems that 412 people read the post from Advogato out of 10468 total (so Advogato gets less than 4% of my readers). Planet Debian seems to get more than 15x the number of readers of Advogato. Incidentally if you don’t currently include images in your blog the reader tracking ability is one reason for including an image in an occasional post. Another strange ad-hominem attack was the reference to “college indoctrination“. When I was in university I supported the Liberal party (the Australian equivalent of the Republican party in the US). The influence of Linux programmers (including some of Pete’s colleagues at Red Hat) had much more of an effect on my political opinions than that of my university experience. I am not criticising Pete for disagreeing with me in regard to politics (I don’t even know what he disagrees with). Here are my specific criticisms of Pete’s behaviour:

1. Ad-hominem attacks


2. Encouraging mis-use of Advogato trust metrics for political reasons (this one may not have been deliberate)


3. Non-specific accusations which do not allow me to either defend myself against the accusations or change my actions if he turns out to have any reasonable points


4. Hypocrisy - he breaks two of the posting guidelines for the purpose of criticising my blog posts which supposedly break some unwritten rule


5. Not reading the Advogato FAQ - it has a specific section about political disagreements

But I’m not going to advocate voting him down on Advogato. He does write some interesting things on occasion. Check out his page on guns for example.

Share This

I've been using quilt a lot at work recently (in a non-Debian environment), and I've been enjoying it very much. So much that I've decided to convert my Debian packages to it, from dpatch. Once you're used to quilt, using dpatch is almost literally painful. :)

There doesn't seem to be a ready-made guide on how to convert packages from dpatch to quilt, so here's how to do it painlessly in five easy steps:

1. Install the quilt package (duh) and make sure that the QUILT_PATCHES variable is set to debian/patches in your shell environment. Or you can set it in your ~/.quiltrc file instead (see this post for other interesting settings).
2. Delete the build dependency on dpatch from your debian/control file, replacing it with a dependency on quilt (>= 0.40).
3. In your debian/rules file, include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make instead of /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make.
4. Convert all your dpatch files by using the following command from your package's top level:

   for p in $(dpatch list-all); do \
       quilt import -P $p.diff debian/patches/$p.dpatch; \
       quilt push; \
   done

5. Delete dpatch files:

   rm -f debian/patches/00list debian/patches/*.dpatch

And that's pretty much it! You'll probably want to clean up the headers of your debian/patches/*.diff files since they'll still contain some dpatch markers. You can now build your package as usual. To edit a patch, use quilt push <patch>, quilt edit <file1> <file2>, finish with quilt refresh to save the patch.

For more information on how to use quilt, read the tutorial, it's in /usr/share/doc/quilt. You won't regret switching!

If you don’t follow debian-vote, you have missed this. It’s really worth a read before casting your final vote on this issue. As I explained in my reply to Russ, this vote is not about details but whether we want to have an intermediate level between DD and nothing, or not. If you don’t give an initial policy, then people against DM will use that “hole” to block it because “it’s not how DM must be done” (and then you’ll need another GR to define a correct implementation and overrule those who are blocking). Yet people keep mixing issues when discussing DM. For some, DM is okay if we had a working NM system. For some, DM would be okay if the responsibility to give upload rights didn’t rely on DD but on a sort of QA committee. For some, DM would be okay if it were integrated in NM. There are also people who are opposed to this second class of contributors but I don’t think they are a majority. Still we might loose a nice opportunity because people want to solve too many things at once instead of doing a first step in a new direction.

In my previous post, I briefly mentioned my K750i Sony-Ericsson mobile phone. I received it as a birthday gift this year, to replace my aging but trustworthy Nokia 3210 and, as with any multifunctional digital device, there was a learning curve during the adoption period. While some features were gladly and swiftly taken into use, some of the handset's usability issues became my pet peeve and, among them, the localization pack wins the jackpot. First, let's make one thing clear: I fully understand that memory constraints prevent manufacturers from including support for every language known to man, so a handset can only be loaded with a limited set of languages for the User Interface and for T9 predictive text input dictionaries. My issue is with the concept of grouping languages by linguistic families or continental areas, when compiling the localization packs for those handsets. In this particular case, I had a choice between the Baltic or Nordic packs. The former has UI language support for Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian, while the later has support for Finnish and the Scandinavian languages; English is also included in both cases. T9 support is a strangely mixed bag: the Baltic pack only includes predictive input for the Slavic languages, while the Nordic pack supports all the languages of its UI. What's my problem with the above language combinations? For starters, I'm in Finland. We don't interact with Danes or Icelanders outside very occasional pan-Nordic meetings and that mostly concerns politicians. Meanwhile, average Finns travel for work and play to Estonia and Russia on a fairly regular basis, which makes sense, since they are neighboring countries. However, available language packs don't take this into account. How should this be resolved? Either language packs are produced with specific countries in mind, rather than generic geographic areas, or the users should be allowed to freely mix and match among all available languages and get the result flashed into their handset at purchase time. The K750i language pack for Finland should therefore include: Finnish, Swedish, Estonian, Russian, English and Norwegian (essentially the current Nordic language pack, but with Danish and Icelandic replaced with Estonian and Russian). Then again, this only covers official state languages. Sam dialects, anyone? I guess not, because we'd soon be exceeding the handset's capacity. Hmm... Thus, the only real solution is to allow people to freely mix and match UI and T9 languages of their choice at purchase time. As a bonus, this would allow me to drop Norwegian and replace it with Joual... ... c lisse, French and finally have a language pack that I can truly find useful. I can easily picture a Transylvanian engineer working in Finland wanting to get Romanian support or a Kurdish immigrant preferring Turkish support instead. Sony-Ericsson, how about it?

So, let’s join the postings about the currently running Debian maintainers GR. The short text of this post is I am against the proposal as it is right now and think it does more harm than good and so I did vote for Further Discussion. See below for a bit more about my reasoning, or just skip if you are already bored. :) The current proposal does look like a “yay, we have an idea thats not really thought through. And we do not want to get it into the currently existing procedures, that would involve more work and discussions. And anyway, everyone is ranting about the current procedures anyway, so lets take that bad mood against it to get this done”. (And yes, this is a bit exaggerated, so don’t take it personal, please). As you may have noticed I wrote that I am against the current proposal when it first was on vote. I was mostly on vacation back then and didnt want to read the whole thread, so I stayed mostly quiet. I am not against the DM concept itself. I am against it being seperate to the existing NM procedure. For me a proper solution has to be integrated with the existing procedures, not seperated. The main reasons why some support this proposal seem to be

1. Slow NM process.
2. Someone doesn’t want to go through NM
3. Someone doesn’t want to be in the Debian community

---

Slow NM process I am part of this, and not a small one. And yes, I feel (very) bad about it, but already think about ways this can be changed, after I got the current backlog done. Anyway, for this DM thing my backlog isn’t the main reason that people feel NM is slow. It seems to be the general “I have to wait for an application manager and then answer to a lot of questions and between that wait and wait and wait”.

---

True. People have to wait at some points, and those waiting periods can be frustrating. We should do our best to eliminate those waiting places. The other point is that of the lot of questions. Yes, we have a really big set of questions in the templates, that cover a whole lot of the possibly areas a future Developer can work in. And most of those questions got added after a large set of existing Developers showed that they completly do not know something. That way the templates are constantly growing and still intend to give the future Developers the possibility to learn about things in Debian they might never have heard about. And there is the thought that, if you read about a topic and had to answer to it in the past, you will at least remember that there is something if you encounter it in the future. But - there is also the fact that an AM is NOT forced to use the templates for their process. AMs are, and have always been, free to do the process on their own. There are some questions every AM has to ask, but thats a minority. If you look at the templates you will spot the needed ones easily. Other than those every AM can freely do whatever he wants to do with his applicant (as long as the applicant agrees to do that stuff and its legal :) ). The AM only has to keep the following in mind: Both, FrontDesk and DAM, usually do not work together with the applicant. They might have heard the applicants name at some point, in some bugreport or some packages Maintainer: field. But they usually did not interact with them. Which means that the AM has to make sure that FD and DAM are able to build up their opinion of the applicant just by reading the mailbox of the AM->NM communication. Which usually means: read between 20 - 70 mails of a communication someone else had before you decide if someone should or should not enter Debian. (Leaving alone checking packages.qa, lintian, bug lists and a bit of google).

---

Someone doesn’t want to go through NM Erm. Well. Then use sponsors for your packages. Or is it because you think NM is too hard? NM isn’t that hard, everyone that can read and write english texts (even if the english is bad) and use google is able to pass NM. (For the bad english - if you fear joining NM because of that: Well. If I go and reread my own report from back when I joined - ugh. I hate my english. And I know native people still hate my english texts, its named en_GANNEFF for a reason. :) It is not necessary for your English to be perfect; you only have to be able to make yourself understood. If an AM doesn’t understand what you wrote they can simply ask for clarification). DM also doesn’t help for people that don’t want to pass NM. They have to pass the advocate, the ID check and the same minimum set of of questions NMs have (as written a bit above). So you already have a large part of NM for the future DMs.

---

Someone doesn’t want to be in the Debian community Then they shouldn’t be able to upload on their own. They can use sponsors. After all the only thing you must do as a DD is to read debian-devel-announce. And thats something a DM also must do, or you can’t seriously consider to package anything. And then DD only adds rights for you, like taking part in votes and so expressing your opinion and getting things changed in Debian that you may not like.

---

How to integrate a concept of DM then? First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by talking to all those involved. There is FrontDesk, DAM and also the NM-Committee, the latter should be the right point for a proposal and discussion. What I can imagine that would work and do something good is a system integrated into NM that gives future Developers upload privileges after they passed a few steps with their AM. That way they can upload early in the process, which can then be part of the T&S set, and the following steps in their NM process “just” slowly add more rights to the NM until its the set of rights every DD has. Seen from the current layout of the process it would be somewhere after the ID check and the first set of P&P, ie. at the time the AM sends the second P&P part. After that point the AM could recommend to those maintaining the DM list that the applicant should be added to it, together with a list of packages where the applicant is allowed to upload them. The maintainers of that DM list could be FrontDesk + DAM + maybe someone else, but thats something to discuss. And list of packages - while one could take the current limits the GR wants to set or simply a plain list, that can be amended during the time someone is a DM. Now, one can add a turnoff for people that do not want to pass through the rest of the process at this place. Im not sure its such a good idea, but thats something one can discuss. But if so it should be attached to some rules like - must read our debian-devel-announce list, is included in regular pings of activity similar to the wat ping.

Fudge Update

Yesterday I blogged about the guy handing out fudge. He saw my post and explained why he was doing it. Today he was around handing out fudge, and I thanked him for his comment. He gave me two pieces of fudge for blogging about it.

Pineapple

At most of the breaks, they have this truly wonderful real (non-canned) pineapple. I think I have eaten more pineapple this week than any other week, ever. Very insidious, O'Reilly.

Conference materials

Slides of talks are available. Apparently keynotes are being posted on Youtube and Google Video, though they haven't provided a specific link AFAICT.

Philip Rosedale, Founder/CEO of Linden Lab

Second Life and the XPrize are two examples of escapism: you can escape to virtual earth, or escape the planet entirely.

In order for Second Life to grow, it has to become profoundly open. It has to be a standardized protocol. They are working on code to let people run their own servers. They are trying to make the server trusted and make it able to be open sourced as well. They see openness as the key way for it to grow.

If you are writing a web app that depends on the network effect -- such as Facebook -- you should open source everything right from the beginning. Not because it's best for humanity, but because you will win.

Jimmy Wales

He's trying to do open source search. Nice idea, could have been summarized in 45 seconds, I think.

Simon Wardli

Was going to talk about Zimki, which was going to open sourced, but they decided not to.

Funny and interesting talk, I sorta forgot to take notes while listening...

Nat Torkington

OSCon program chair.

Funny talk about Linux, an adolescent at 16 years old. Thinking about different languages and how they're doing. How the Linux community is organized: are we fighting battles, and do we need to?

James Larsson

This guy takes old hardware and makes insane devices out of it. 15,000 volts running over a coat hanger used as a "game controller", for instance.

In all, awesome keynotes today.

We've had a lot of great blog traffic about Vinismo. I thought I'd try to pull together a few of the better ones.

• vinismo! wiki wine compendium from Hugh McGuire.
• Vinismo Opens Its Doors to Wine Lovers Everywhere from the Creative Commons Weblog. Thanks, guys!
• Vinismo: Wiki + Wine from Zach Copley
• Vinismo from Wendy Copley.
• DemoCampMontreal3 report from Montreal Tech Watch
• DemoCampMontreal3 Report from Josh Nursing
• Vinismo Presentation at DemoCampMontreal3 on the SearchAnyway Blog. Probably one of my favourite pieces, although it makes Niko real mad since it cuts off just before he starts talking. Make mental note: don't say "Uh" so much.
• Bienvenue sur Vinismo, le guide des vins libre by Niko. Niko also bemoaned the difficulty of keeping our project under wraps in Mon lourd secret bient t d voil . What a drama queen.
• Vinismo : un wiki sur le vin by Olivier Niquet. He's suspicious that we are sponsored by J. Lohr, because there are so many J. Lohr wines on our front page.

All in all it's been pretty good. I hope we'll get some more, though! tags: blogs vinismo

DemoCampMontreal3 report So, it's been a couple of days and I should probably get around to posting my own DemoCampMontreal3 report.

• Niko and I started off with our own demo for Vinismo. It was a lot of fun: we talked about the reasons for starting the site, the technical, information architecture and graphics/UI design challenges, and what our future extensions are going to be. At the end of it, we took some questions, which was fun. The most interesting for me was from Roberto Rocha, whose TechnoCit is one of my favourite tech columns in Montreal. He asked, "Your typical contributor will be much older. What will you do to make your wiki more accessible to them?" It was a good question I don't have an answer to yet, but I want to think about it more.
• The second demo was by Heri Rakotomalala, who showed off his social-networking GTD tool, WorkCruncher. It's a TODO list with a twist: items that you don't get done age off the list. You have to re-commit to doing a task on an almost daily basis. I think it's a great and refreshing design; my TODO list gets depressing long and filled with unfinishable tasks, and I get too intimidated to work on ones that really matter. I think Heri might have to make some concessions to people's expectations for TODO lists -- maybe a way to automatically archive tasks, rather than deleting them entirely...?
• The third demo was by the gang from Defensio, who are providing an great anti-spam Web service similar to Akismet. They had a few examples of where they're different, but I'm not well-versed enough in comment spam issues to understand them. My guess is that since they're getting into the market after Akismet, though, they have the opportunity to make a smarter technology. Their one downside? They used slides -- which the rules of DemoCamp. They did demo the service, though.
• Fourth up was the indefatigable Simon Law. Simon's project? To turn back time. Talk about ambitious! His effort consisted of making a typical kitchen clock turn backwards. He disassembled the clock and explained how it worked to the audience. It was great, except for two things: the clock didn't work at the end of the demo (although he got it working by the end of DemoCamp), and he took a few minutes to draw a diagram of the clock; in my mind, that's just a low-tech PowerPoint slide.
• Fifth, and quite fascinating, was a tool that Jerome Paradis showed off. It was a Google-Maps mashup that filtered special emails for an informal private jet sharing network. Apparently, companies who charter private jets often have space in the jets, so they'll make that space available. People who need a last-minute charter jet can send email from their Blackberries and such, and if there's availability they get contacted by the charter companies. The interesting part? These people use a highly structured lingo ("O/W" = "one way"), and Jerome's tool scrapes these emails to make the data into a mapping app for his customers. Very interesting!

All in all, it was a good night -- probably made better by the Argentina Cabernet Sauvignon I had. There's a DemoCampMontreal4 scheduled for August 17th, but I won't be in town for it. Too bad for me! tags: democampmontreal3 defensio workcruncher simonlaw jeromeparadis vinismo

Remember when sponsoring packages was implemented in Debian? Imagine if we had felt the need to vote on whether we were allowed to do that. Instead of just doing it. I'll bet that some people would have argued against, citing reasons such as:

It appears to me that the sponsorship as sketched in the GR is mainly meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is just to find someone besides Joerg to also read the AM reports. Sponsees as in the GR are a workaround, not a solution.

or:

But the GR micro-manages too much and on the other hand doesn t make the current NM process any easier for Sponsees than for any non-Sponsee applicant to the NM process. Also, like some others said before, I seriously doubt that a big part of the current DD-applicants (i.e. those in the NM queue at some level) would prefer Sponsee status over DD status. What is the difference between a Sponsee and a Debian Developer? Who is interested in becoming a Sponsee and not a Debian Developer and why? Will this Sponsee class really improve the situation for New Maintainers?

or:

I suppose most of our New Maintainers will aim to become a Sponsee just to bridge the time until they re full Debian Developers. And I predict that this is also the major target audience for this new Sponsee class. Some people said on -vote that there are people actually interested in becoming a Sponsee and not a Debian Developer. Personally I find their reasons questionable, but after all I suppose there won t be many people going this route. On the other side, I don t see how this new class enhances the situation for the New Maintainers. Now they not only wait for the Application Manager, Front Desk and Debian Account Managers No, now they will also search for someone who sponsors them. So my question is: If this General Resolution mainly helps New Maintainers, why must it be so complicated? Why another class of contributers, all those complicated rules to set it up and this additional layer of bureaucracy?

or:

If you think the NM process is taking too long, then it's probably better to help out there rather than to try to create a system to bypass it in this way.

But instead, we somehow made the enormous change that sponsorship entailed in how Debian works, without voting on it. Make no mistake, it was a big change on both a technical as well as a social level. Now IMHO, the DM proposal is just fixing a bug in the current sponsorship process. The interesting thing to consider is, if this vote fails, how can the bug be fixed without another vote? I personally believe that any DD has the power to fix this without dragging the project through a vote. They may put their status as developer at stake in fixing it, if they take what seems like the obvious approach, but if one feels that this bug in sponsorship is a bad enough bug and is hurting Debian enough, that might be worth it.

Following up to Myon’s post, I also wanted to blog my honest opinion about the GR. Given my current understanding of the GR, I hope to see it fail (and will send my vote shortly after this blog entry I think). The reason is not that I think it shouldn’t be made easier to contribute to Debian (on the contrary). But the GR micro-manages too much and on the other hand doesn’t make the current NM process any easier for DM’s than for any non-DM applicant to the NM process. Also, like some others said before, I seriously doubt that a big part of the current DD-applicants (i.e. those in the NM queue at some level) would prefer DM status over DD status. And the same is true (IMHO) for other people wanting to contribute to Debian. This is a simple thing: If I contribute to something regularly in my spare time (like most contributors in the FL/OSS world do), I also would like to have some influence over its directions. And a DM is missing this influence even more than a DD is. So what should be done instead in my opinion?
I think that a DM like status is fine as part of a (possibly re-designed) NM process. Given the current NM process, I would like people been given a DM like status after they finished the T&S (tasks^IIRC and skills) part if their AM found their skills and knowledge of the policy rules sufficient to give them that status. If that is all they wanted, they can drop from the NM process at that point and stay DMs. If they want to become DDs later on, they can resume the NM process at that very step (or continue right ahead). This would do several things:

• introduce the DM status as an alternative to full DD status
• integrate the DM status closer with the existing NM process
• take some load of the friendly sponsors who upload non-DD packages now, giving them more time to help more new contributors
• give people waiting for DD status some intermediate level at which they already can do more than before their joining of the NM queue

So I really think “more discussion” is the only valid option for me in this GR. If you want to change my mind: Please leave some feedback in my blog. Or give a precise (but brief) description why the current proposal is better than integration with the current NM process in one way or the other. Abbreviations:

• DD = Debian Developer (a full Debian project member, includes voting rights)
• DM = Debian Maintainer (planned to be a somewhat restricted DD, among others without voting rights)
• NM = New Maintainer (should actually be: New Developer)
• GR = General Resolution (a way in Debian to create new rules or to ask the project leader or others in the project to do or refrain from doing something)

Update:
The GR even seems to contradict itself a bit. If the upload rules are applied in an AND fashion, one of these rules is superfluous (the first one), at least if I’m not mistaken:

• the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file corresponds with the owner of the key used (ie, non-developer maintainers may not sponsor uploads)
• the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or experimental includes the field “DM-Upload-Allowed: yes” in the source section of its control file
• the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or experimental lists the uploader in the Maintainer: or Uploaders: fields (ie, non-developer maintainers cannot NMU or hijack packages)

The first rules also means that no DM could ever do an upload for packages team-maintained in the fashion cyrus-imapd-2.2 is maintained (Maintainer address is the teams mailinglist address, all uploading team members are in the Uploaders field). This is IMHO a serious flaw in the proposal. If the first rule was dumped, all would be well for team maintainers.

Share This

OK, this is probably my last Tour post for a while... back to business, software and the village after this, but I heard this on the radio over breakfast and I can't see much about it online. One of the most disappointing things for English Tour fans about Moreni's failed dope test [tdfblog] is the departure of his Cofidis team-mate Bradley Wiggins from the race, days before the last (and most Wiggins-winnable) of the individual time trials. In an interview this morning on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme at about 07:45 (in case you can Listen Again to it), there was the question:

"We've had whole teams withdrawing. It's not just the two who test positive. It's the sense that those are the tip of an iceberg, isn't it? The whole team pulls out and you don't really know how many others in that team are affected by the same behaviour."

and UCI president Pat McQuaid answered:

"Well, I mean, the fact that the whole team pulled out is something which the UCI is quite annoyed about, in actual fact, and it was that the organisers asked the teams to pull out. It wasn't the fact that the teams pulled out of their own accord. The organisers said to them, as a result of the positive, that they got the one person and they said they want the whole team out of it. That actually goes against the rules and it shouldn't have happened. Erm, so, from that point of view, you can't put anything on the other riders. You can't say that the other riders are up to anything just because they're not in the race. They were asked by the organisers to get out."

The interview continues to point out how there's much more testing in cycling now than ever before, and more than in any other sport (remember, Puerto implicated footballers and others too), but it's interesting how the whole-team-out approach is criticised for removing the other riders on a team from the race testing! Anyway, by the UCI president's reasoning, Bradley Wiggins should still be racing. Well done to UCI and the tour for catching Moreni and almost-well-done to Moreni for admitting it, but boo Cofidis for pulling the whole team out! (2007-07-26: +1 comment)

When voting on the current Debian Maintainers General Resolution, I think it’s worth to think about the following questions: What is the difference between a Debian Maintainer and a Debian Developer? Who is interested in becoming a Debian Maintainer and not a Debian Developer and why? Will this Debian Maintainer class really improve the situation for New Maintainers? I suppose most of our New Maintainers will aim to become a Debian Maintainer just to bridge the time until they’re full Debian Developers. And I predict that this is also the major target audience for this new Debian Maintainers class. Some people said on -vote that there are people actually interested in becoming a Debian Maintainer and not a Debian Developer. Personally I find their reasons questionable, but after all I suppose there won’t be many people going this route. On the other side, I don’t see how this new class enhances the situation for the New Maintainers. Now they not only wait for the Application Manager, Front Desk and Debian Account Managers — No, now they will also search for someone who advocates them to become a Debian Maintainer and have to wait for their key being added to the Debian Maintainers keyring. So my question is: If this General Resolution mainly helps New Maintainers, why must it be so complicated? Why another class of contributers, all those complicated rules to set it up and this additional layer of bureaucracy? Why don’t we aim for something simple, like improving our New Maintainer process. I would rather see some of those Debian Maintainer rights granted to New Maintainers after a certain point in their New Maintainer career, but not in this complicated and overengineered way the Debian Maintainer class proposes.

I read with interest Erik Moeller's note about sources on Wikipedia: Wikipedia s core problem is not expertise, it s self-selection. He quotes the following paragraph from the article about Mitt Romney: Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003, along with Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. Within one year of taking office, Romney eliminated a 3 billion dollar budget deficit. During this time he did not raise taxes or debt. He also proceeded to end his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus as well as lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate. Erik pointed out that the cited source was the Mitt Romney for president campaign, and then worried about the self-selection of Wikipedia contributors. I think he's on the wrong track. I don't think the sources of Wikipedia articles matter that much, if the text is readable, true, neutral and verifiable. The part that really made me cringe, in the above paragraph, was the awkward construction He also proceeded to end his term... Awful. I've streamlined the sentence to He ended his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus, lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate. As I tried to explained in my unfinished essay on Readers and writers on Wikipedia, I think that as Wikipedians we concentrate far too much on the agenda and rights of contributors, and far too little on the readability and usefulness of the articles themselves. I think WP is going to become more professional when more Wikipedians practice their writing skills than their rule-making skills. We should concentrate on the quality of the output, not on the source of the input. tags: wiki wikipedia erikmoeller mittromney writing