Review: Democracy at Work, by Richard Wolff

Publisher:	Haymarket
Copyright:	2012
ISBN:	1-60846-247-1
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	220

I've been reading (mostly on-line) and thinking quite a bit lately about workplace governance models, economic structure, and why the current organization of the US workplace bothers me so intensely, partly triggered by reading John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society. The economic monoculture has made that process particularly frustrating. It's rare to find a discussion, even in the context of organizational strategies that are considered radical, that avoids the standard frame of productivity and business value. Most discussion is long on tactics and short on strategy and examination of goals. Wolff's appearance on Moyers & Company was a rare breath of fresh air, enough so that I grabbed his book shortly afterwards. Wolff is a Marxian economist (meaning that he makes use of Marxist analysis of economics and capitalism while separating them from Marxist politics and Marx's advocacy of revolutionary socialism), which for me was part of the interest. Marxist thought of any branch is not common in the United States; we're regularly deprived of several sides in the international conversation on economic models. I was taught Marxist theory in elementary and high school (in retrospect, surprisingly even-handedly and well, despite the biases of my schooling), but none of the later developments of Marxist thought. I think that's a typical experience here; in the United States, Marxism culminated in Mao and Stalin, and no further development of the underlying theories is ever mentioned. Democracy at Work is subtitled A Cure for Capitalism and does indeed advocate a concrete alternative to capitalist business structures. But this is only the last third of the book (and in some ways the least useful, as I'll discuss in a moment). The first two-thirds of the book is basically a remedial education in modern, as opposed to historic, Marxian economics for US readers like myself who have never heard it before, cast in the context of the current financial crisis. This may well be old hat for Europeans, but if you've been wondering what (at least some) modern-day Marxists actually believe, or are saying to yourself "there are modern-day Marxists after the collapse of the Soviet Union?", I recommend this book to your attention. It's an excellent summary, which I read with the delightful feeling of an expanding viewpoint and the discovery of new directions from which to look at a problem. There's quite a bit in this section that's worth thinking about, including another take on the nature of the recent economic collapse and how that fits into a Marxian analysis of capitalist crises. But there was one point in Wolff's explanation that I found particularly helpful. He completely restructured my understanding of the Marxian analysis of worker exploitation and profit allocation. There are two angles of Marxist economic thought and socialist economics that get a great deal of attention, at least in the United States, in history and economics classes: the role (or lack thereof) of markets in price setting, and the ownership of the means of production. Defenders of capitalism like to focus on the former, since it's quite easy to identify the advantages of theoretical free markets in finding ideal prices and balancing supply and demand, whereas central planning of prices and production has resulted in some catastrophic and deadly failures. (Although I will note, with passing interest, that those failures predate large-scale computing, and there are now large corporations that manage budgets larger than some countries via centralized command-and-control economic practices.) Defenders of socialism are more likely to focus on the ownership of the means of production, since it's easy to show prima facie unfairness in owners of capital extracting vast profits without having to do any work themselves, only be lucky enough to start with large quantities of money. Wolff, however, argues that both of these focuses misses a core critique by Marx of the workplace structure in capitalism, and that, by ignoring that critique, supposedly Marxist countries did not create anything that was actually Marxist in implementation. The Soviet Union was just as much a capitalist country as the United States is. It was state capitalism rather than private capitalism, but the core capitalist structure was intact. Wolff arrives at this conclusion, which may be well-trodden ground in parts of the world that include active Marxist thought but which was quite startling to this American, by treating the ownership of capital as a partial distraction. He focuses on a more direct question and practical question: who determines what a worker does on a day-to-day basis and how that product is used? Who determines what profits are collected and how they are spent? In private capitalism, this is done by the owners of the capital: large shareholders, major investors, and the managerial class that they hire. In Soviet state capitalism, this is done by national politicians, bureaucrats, and the managerial class that they hire. In neither model is it done by the workers themselves. The Soviet model gives theoretical ownership of the capital to the workers, but that ownership is diffused, centralized, and politicized, redirected through the mechanisms of the state, and therefore is effectively ignored. Ownership and control is entirely captured by the political class. Both of these systems are capitalist in Wolff's view of Marx: there is a class of owners and managers, who control the terms and nature of work and who allocate the profits, and a class of workers, who have to do what they're told, are not paid full value for their labor, and don't have a say in how the profits their work generates are spent. At the most important level of day-to-day autonomy and empowerment, they are functionally identical. They are both equally hierarchical and exploitative; the only difference is in whether the system is controlled by rich individuals or by well-connected politicians. (And, as any study of modern politics quickly reveals, the distinction between those two groups in most countries is murky at best.) Wolff convincingly recasts modern economic history as a constant pendulum swing between private capitalism and state capitalism. Crises in one system push countries towards the other system; subsequent crises push the country back towards the first system. Regulation grows and shrinks, companies are nationalized and then privatized, but both systems are united in excluding the worker from any meaningful control over their work life. The first two-thirds of the book was full of insights like this for me. I didn't agree with all of it, but all of it was worthwhile and thought-provoking. But I was a bit leery of Wolff's proposed solution. My past experience with critics of capitalism is that the critique is often quite compelling, but the proposed solution is much less believable. And, sadly, that concern was warranted here as well. The core of Wolff's proposal is predictable but possibly sound: a restructuring of the workplace to be radically democratic. The business would be owned entirely and exclusively by the people who work for it, equally regardless of the job of the worker, and the workers would decide democratically or via elected repesentatives from among the workers how to allocate the profits of the business, what standards and business practices should be followed, and how the work is to be done. I was particularly interested to hear that this model (workers' self-directed enterprises) has apparently been successful in Spain in the form of the Mondragon Cooperative. Given all the tricky, small details that have to be resolved in an actual workplace, an existence proof is worth more than pounds of theory. Unfortunately, like a lot of proposed alternatives, Wolff's description of WSDEs is quite fuzzy and involves a lot of hand-waving. I was never able to build, from this book, a coherent and complete mental model of how such a workplace would function. Wolff tends to surround every specific in a halo of contingencies, possibilities, and alternative models, and is maddeningly nonspecific on such practical matters as how line management would work, how such a business would do financial planning or project approval, how competing interests in different parts of the organization would be balanced, and other practical governance matters that fill my work life. Maybe the answer to all of that is just "democracy," but I'm dubious. Democracy has a number of well-known flaws that I thought weren't adequately addressed. For example, democracies are often quite happy to further and reinforce existing prejudice (such as sexism or racism), and are prone to yielding control to the most charismatic. Democracies also have an informed voter problem, which seems like it would be particularly acute if democracy is going to make detailed business decisions. And, for larger organizations, control by pre-existing money could re-enter the equation via propaganda and campaigning around votes. Some of this gap in the book could be addressed via a more in-depth look at how Mondragon and any other real-life examples work, but that is sadly missing here. (I am interested enough now, though, that I'd read a good popular treatment of the history and methodology of Mondragon, although I don't think I'm up to working through an academic study.) The hierarchical, dictatorial management structure imposed by capitalism is so awful that WSDEs don't have a particularly high bar to meet to be fairer and more empowering than what we have today. The question, rather, is would they function sufficiently well that the business would be able to make effective decisions, and that's unclear to me from this book. This is, as Wolff spends some time discussing, particularly difficult when in direct competition with capitalist enterprises. This sort of endeavor will probably trade some degree of economic efficiency and raw marketplace power for improvements to fairness and empowerment, but that means it's going to require support from the surrounding society, which is a huge obstacle. I doubt there's a free lunch here: true fairness and equity also leading to improved economic efficiency in a capitalist context is a nice dream, but not horribly practical. Wolff also seems to suffer from something else I associate with Marxist thought: a preferential focus on a very narrowly-defined type of productive worker, apparently left over from Marx's original critique in the context of industrialization. Wolff inserts a very odd and quite awkward distinction in his WSDE model between workers who directly produce the product that's sold, and who in his model therefore produce the profits of the business, and all other workers in the business. He then gives special privileges to the former group to decide how much profit to return in worker compensation and how much to use for other purposes, thus making the supporting workers second-class citizens within this supposedly equal workplace. Speaking as someone who works in IT, and hence would be classified by Wolff into the supporting rather than directly productive category, I do not find this division at all convincing, and Wolff never provides a coherent explanation for why he introduced it. He only says that it's necessary for the governance of the business to not be exploitative, which seems to assume that there is a special economic role played by the workers who work directly on a saleable product. Maybe there is some analysis that could convince me of this, but, if so, it's not present in this book. It struck me as a recipe for continuing the exploitation of the most invisible and powerless workers in capitalism: janitors, groundskeepers, and other low-paid service jobs. I wish the whole book were as insightful and pointed as the first two-thirds, but alas I found the WSDE discussion to be somewhat muddled and utopian. "How do we get there from here" is always the hardest part of this type of discussion, and Wolff has no special skill in that department. But, despite that, I got a lot of fascinating ideas and new conceptual frameworks out of this book, and I'm tempted to read it again. I suspect some of this, similar to my discovery of promises and infinite streams in programming, is filling in of odd gaps in my personal education rather than a discovery of unusual, new ideas. But if you too have gotten your political education within the US capitalism ber alles bubble, this book may fill in similar gaps in your knowledge. If so, it's a very rewarding experience. If you're curious about a preview of Wolff's perspective without paying for the book, I recommend watching the first episode of Moyers & Company in which he appeared. Wolff is a clear and engaging speaker, and his interview provides a good feel for his discussion style and his general perspective. Rating: 8 out of 10

There were two competing free software projects, doing more or less the same thing. Project B was in active development 3 years before Project R showed up, and then the two competed for quite some time. While Project B seemed to operate as part of the gift economy, Project R was developed by folks who had received some monetary funding, and once their funding began to wane, they began to complain. Eventually fundraising campaigns were held. The community was happy to participate in polite fictions: Project B didn't really exist; the only people who could possibly fix the bugs in Project R were the people demanding money; there would be no conflict of interest between the gatekeepers of Project R. Gradually, all development ceased on Project B and never resumed. The leader of Project R kept jumping up and down and demanding more money, until finally he declared it insufficient. Then there were two dead codebases.

Since there is so much nice new stuff in Debian Wheezy, I have to split up my contributions to Mika s #newinwheezy game on Planet Debian. Here s the next bunch, this time web browsers:

dillo

The FLTK-based lightweight GUI web browser Dillo comes with its own rendering engine (no JavaScript, incomplete CSS support) was already in Debian before, but was removed before the release of Debian Squeeze, because Dillo 2 relied on FLTK 2.x which had an unclear license situation back then and never made it into Debian. In the meanwhile Dillo 3 relies on FLTK 1.3 as FLTK upstream abandoned the 2.0 branch and continued development on the 1.3 branch. So I brought Dillo back into Debian with its 3.0.x release.

netsurf

The RiscOS-originating lightweight GUI web browser Netsurf was already in Debian, too, but didn t make it into Debian Squeeze as it needed the Lemon parser generator (part of the SQLite source) to build back then and a change in Lemon caused Netsurf to no more build properly in the wrong moment. Netsurf supports CSS 2.1, but has no JavaScript support either. I d consider its rendering engine more complete than Dillo s.

surf and xxxterm

Surf and XXXTerm are both simple and minimalistic webkit-based browsers. Surf is easy to embed in other applications and XXXTerm features vi-like keybindings for heavy keyboard users.

To be continued ;-)

Review: The System of the World, by Neal Stephenson

Series:	The Baroque Cycle #3
Publisher:	William Morrow
Copyright:	2004
ISBN:	0-06-052387-5
Format:	Hardcover
Pages:	892

This is the third book of the three-volume Baroque Cycle. I think you could, if you really wanted, read it without reading the previous volumes; Stephenson is certainly long-winded enough that you can pick up most of what's going on while you read. It's been a year since I read the second volume, and I only resorted to Wikipedia a couple of times to remember plot elements (and mostly from the first book). However, I wouldn't recommended starting here. Many of the character relationships, and most of the underpinning of the plot, is established in the previous volumes and given more significance by them. You would also miss The Confusion, which is the best book of the series, although none of this series rises to the level at which I'd recommend it except under specific circumstances. Quicksilver establishes the characters of Daniel Waterhouse, a fictional Puritan whose family was close to Cromwell and who became a friend to Isaac Newton in the days following the Restoration; Jack Shaftoe, a vagabond who wanders Europe in a sequence of improbable adventures; and Eliza, who becomes a friend to Leibniz and a spy for William of Orange. The Waterhouse sections are prominent in Quicksilver: full of the early history of the Royal Society, alchemy, and a small amount of politics. Of those three characters, Eliza is by far the most interesting, which meant that I was delighted when The Confusion dropped Waterhouse almost entirely and mixed Eliza's further story with more improbable but entertaining sea adventures of Jack Shaftoe. You will immediately sense my root problem with The System of the World when you hear that it is almost entirely about Daniel Waterhouse. While Eliza and Jack both appear, they play supporting roles at best, and Eliza's wonderful sharp intelligence and pragmatic survival skills are left out almost entirely. Instead, this is a novel about Waterhouse's return to England after spending quite a bit of time in the American colonies working on calculating machines. He is almost immediately entangled in dangerous politics from multiple directions: the precarious national politics in England near the end of the reign of Queen Anne, Isaac Newton's attempts to maintain the currency of England as Master of the Mint, and a bombing attempt that may have been aimed at him, may have been aimed at Newton, and may have been aimed at someone else entirely. Much of the book consists of an extended investigation of this bombing plot, skullduggery involving counterfeiters, and attempts to use the currency and the Mint as part of the political conflict between Whigs and Tories, mixed in with attempts to construct a very early computer (this is Stephenson, after all). Leibniz and Eliza come into this only as confidants of the Hanoverians. All this may sound exciting, and there are parts of it that hold the attention. But this book sprawls as badly as Quicksilver did. There's just too much detail without either enough plot or enough clarity. Stephenson tries to make you feel, smell, and hear the streets of London and the concerns of an idiosyncratic group of semi-nobles during one of the more interesting junctures of British history, but he does that by nearly drowning you in it, and without providing enough high-level guidance. For most of the book, I felt like I was being given a tour of a house on my hands and knees with a magnifying glass. It's a bad sign when the reader of a historical novel is regularly resorting to Wikipedia, not to follow interesting tangents of supporting material, but to try to get a basic sense of the players and the politics involved because the author never explains them clearly. If you're more familiar with the details of British history than I am, and can more easily follow the casual intermixing of two or three forms of address for the same historical figure, you may not have that problem. But I think other structural issues remain, and one of the largest is Waterhouse himself. Jack Shaftoe, and particularly Eliza, are more interesting characters because they're characters. They're not always particularly believable, but they attack the world with panache and are constantly squirming into the center of things. Stephenson's portrayals of Newton, Leibniz, the Duke of Marlborough, Sophia of Hanover, Peter the Great, and the other historical figures who show up here are interesting for different reasons: Stephenson has history to draw on and elaborate, and it's fascinating to meet those people from a different angle than dry lists of accomplishments. History has a way of providing random details that are too bizarre to make up; Isaac Newton, for example, actually did disguise himself to infiltrate London criminal society in pursuit of counterfeiters while he was Master of the Mint! Waterhouse, for me, has none of these advantages. He is an invented character in whom I have no pre-existing interest. He drifts through events largely through personal connections, all of which seem to be almost accidental. He's welcome in the councils of the Royal Society because he's apparently a scientist, but the amount of actual science we see him doing is quite limited. His nonconformist background allies him squarely with the Whigs, but his actual position on religious matters seems much less set than the others around him. What he seems to want, more than anything else, is to help Leibniz in the development of a computer and to reconcile Newton and Leibniz. And he's not particularly effective at either. In short, he has little in the way of memorable character or dynamism, despite being the primary viewpoint character, and seems to exist mostly to know everyone and be everywhere that's important to the story. He feels like an authorial insertion more than a character. It's quite easy to believe that Stephenson himself would have loved to be in exactly the role and situation that Waterhouse finds himself in throughout the book, in the middle of the councils of the wise and powerful, in just the right position to watch the events of history. I can sympathize, but it doesn't make for engrossing reading. Novels live and die by the strength of their characters, particularly their protagonists; I want more than just a neutral viewpoint. The third major structural problem that I had with this book is that I think Stephenson buries his lede. After finishing it, I think this is a book with a point, a central premise around which all the events of the story turn, and which is the philosophical culmination of The Baroque Cycle as a whole. But Stephenson seems oddly unwilling to state that premise outright until the very end of the book. For the first half, one could be forgiven in thinking this is a story about alchemy and the oddly heavy gold that's been a part of the story since The Confusion, or perhaps about foundational but forgotten work on computation that preceded Babbage by a century. But those all turn out to be side stories, sometimes even without a proper conclusion. I appreciate honoring the intelligence of the reader, and I presume that Stephenson would like to guide the reader through the same process of realization that the characters go through, but I think he takes this much too far and fails to make the realization clear. I'll therefore state what I believe is the premise outright, since I think it's a stronger book with this idea in mind: The System of the World is a continuation of the transformational economics shown in The Confusion into the realm of politics. Specifically, it's about the replacement of people with systems, about the journey towards Parliamentary supremacy, central banking, and the persistent state, and about the application of scientific principles of consistency and reproducibility to politics and economics (however fitfully and arbitrarily). Quicksilver was about the rise of science; The Confusion was, in retrospect, about the rise of economics; and The System of the World tries to be about the rise of technocratic modern politics, barely perceptible among the squabbles between Tories and Whigs. I think that's a fascinating premise, and I would have loved to read a book that tackles it head-on. That's a concept that is much more familiar from the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the context of Marxism, early socialism, technological utopianism, and similar attempted applications of scientific analysis to political and human behavior for the betterment of human civilization. Shifting that 200 years earlier and looking at a similar question from the perspective of the giants of the Enlightenment feels full of of potential. There are moments when I think Stephenson captures the sense of a seismic shift in how economies are run, knowledge is established, and civilizations are knit together. But, most of the time, it just isn't clear. There's so much other stuff in this book, and in the whole series: so many false starts, digressions, abandoned plots, discarded characters, and awkward attempts at romance (as much as I like the characters, Stephenson's portrayal of the relationship between Eliza and Jack is simply ridiculous and not particularly funny) that the whole weight of the edifice crushes what I think is the core concept. Stephenson is never going to be sparse. When you start a Stephenson novel, you know it's going to be full of chunks of partly digested encyclopedia and random research findings that may have nothing to do with the plot. But his best books (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, even Cryptonomicon) have an underlying structure off of which all of those digressions are hung. You can see the bones beneath the flesh, and the creature they create is one you want to get to know. I'm not sure there are any bones here, and that may be the peril, for Stephenson, of writing historical fiction. I wonder if he felt that the structure of history would provide enough structure by itself that he could wrap a few plots around the outside of it and call it good. If so, it didn't work, at least for me. A lot of things happen. Some of them are even exciting and tense. A lot of people meet, interact, and show off their views of the world. A great deal of history, research, and sense of place is described in painstaking detail. But at the end of the book, I felt like I had to reach for some sort of point and try to retrofit it to the story. Lots happened, but there wasn't a novel. And that makes it quite hard to get enthused by the book. If you adored Quicksilver, I suspect you will also like this. I think they're the most similar. If, like I did, you thought The Confusion was a significant step up in enjoyment in the series and were hoping the trend will continue, I'm sad to report that it didn't. If you were considering whether to read the whole series and were waiting to see what I thought of the end, my advice is to give The Baroque Cycle a pass unless you absolutely love Stephenson's digressions, don't care if they're about history instead of current technology, and cannot live without 3,000 pages of them. It's not that they're bad books, but they're very long books, they take a significant investment of time and attention, and I think that, for most readers, there are other books that would repay a similar investment with more enjoyment. Rating: 5 out of 10

This is my monthly summary of my free software related activities. If you re among the people who made a donation to support my work (102.70 , thanks everybody!), then you can learn how I spent your money. Otherwise it s just an interesting status update on my various projects. Debian France Work on Galette. I spent quite some time on Debian France s galette installation (the web application handling its member database), first converting its Postgres database to UTF-8, then upgrading to 0.7.4 while working-around many known problems. I also created Debian packages of three Galette plugins that we have been using (galette-plugin-paypal, galette-plugin-admintools, galette-plugin-fullcard). But every time I use galette, I tend to find something to report. This month I filed 5 tickets:

• #588: galette should offer a way to send a test mail while setting up the mail notifications
• #589: CSV export page contains an invalid download link
• #590: confirmation page of a successful PayPal payment contains empty fields
• #591: problem with the selection of recipients of a mailing
• #595: galette should put a proper recipient in the To: field of automatically generated mails.

I tested quite some fixes prepared by the upstream author (3 of the above bugs are already fixed) and this lead to the 0.7.4.1 bugfix release. Preliminary work on new bylaws. I have setup a git repository to make it easier to collaborate on new versions of our bylaws and internal rules. The goal is to make Debian France a trusted organization of Debian and to update everything to be compliant with the association 1901 law (we currently have a special statute reserved to associations from Alsace/Moselle). Kali Linux Improve accessibility support in Debian Wheezy. Offensive Security wanted Kali Linux to be fully accessible to disabled people. Since Wheezy was suffering from some serious regressions in that area, we hired Emilio Pozuelo Monfort to fix #680636 and #689559 in gdm3. On my side, I updated debian-installer s finish-install to correctly pre-configure the system when you make an install with speech synthesis (patch submitted in #705599).
Thanks to accommodating release managers, this work has already been integrated in Wheezy and won t have to wait the first point release. Fix bugs in Debian s live desktop installer. We also wanted to enable the desktop installer in the Kali live DVD. While our first tries a few months ago failed, this time it worked almost out of the box (thanks to Ben Armstrong who fixed it). I still identified a few issues that I fixed in debian-installer-launcher s git repository. Packaging and misc Debian work

• I reviewed the work of Charles Plessy who drafted an important update of the Debian Policy to document dpkg triggers (see #582109)
• I reviewed the libwebsockets package prepared by Peter Pentchev (ITP 697671)
• I discovered Tanglu and joined their mailing list because I want to watch its evolution (and maybe use it as a test-bed for some future infrastructure developments).
• I reviewed and committed a patch of Robert Spencer on debian-cd (see #703431).
• I packaged version 3.3 of cpputest (in experimental). I tested a new upstream snapshot converted to autotools.

I also spent a significant number of hours to answer questions of students who want to participate in Google s summer of code and who are interested by the rewrite of the Package Tracking System with Python and Django. Some of the discussions happened on debian-qa@lists.debian.org. Thanks See you next month for a new summary of my activities.

One comment Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.

So while I haven't work exceptionally hard to help with the Debian Wheezy release (I merely help with a few RC bugs and organised a bug squashing party), I still have a few significant contributions to the release. So here's my claim to fame to the #newinwheezy game:

• Charybdis - a popular and solid IRC server which is the base of the software behind the Freenode network (amongst others)
• Kedpm - a Figaro compatible password manager, one of the few out there which supports both a console and graphical UI
• tty-clock - a simple console clock
• Drush 5 - probably the best Drush release so far, and although Wheezy doesn't feature the latest release, as soon as wheezy is released, I'll backport the latest (5.9)
• Gameclock 4 - a great clock engine for timing chess games and other board games - unfortunately, version 5, which has support for go timers, wasn't ready in time for Wheezy, but will be backported

Excuse me for the rush and lack of organization... But this kind of things don't always allow for proper planning. So, please bear with my chaos ;-) What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Yet another secretely negotiated international agreement that, among many chapters, aims at pushing a free-market based economy, as defined by a very select few Most important to me, and to many of my readers: It includes important chapters on intellectual property and online rights. Hundreds of thousands of us along the world took part in different ways on the (online and "meat-space") demonstrations against the SOPA/PIPA laws back in February 2012. We knew back then that a similar project would attempt to bite us back: Well, here it is. Only this time, it's not only covering copyright, patents, trademark, reverse engineering, etc. TPP is basically a large-scale free trade agreement on steroids. The issue that we care about now is just one of its aspects. Thus, it's way less probable we can get a full stop for TPP as we got for SOPA. But we have to get it on the minds of as many people as possible! Learn more with this infography distributed by the EFF. Which countries? The countries currently part of TPP are Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam And, of course, the USA. Mexico, Canada and Japan are in the process of joining the partnership. A group of Mexican senators are travelling to Lima to take part of this round. What are we doing about it? As much as possible! I tried to tune in with Peru's much more organized call The next round of negotiations will be in Lima, Peru, between May 14 and 24. Their activities are wildly more organized than ours: They are planning a weekend-long Camping for Internet freedom, with 28 hours worth of activities. As for us, our activities will be far more limited, but I still hope to have an interesting session: This Friday, we will have Aula Magna, Facultad de Ingenier a, UNAM, M xico DF, from 10AM and until 3PM. We do not have a clear speakers program, as the organization was quite rushed. I have invited several people who I know will be interesting to hear, and I expect a good part of the discussion to be a round table. I expect we will:

1. Introduce people working on different corners of this topic
2. Explain in some more detail what TPP is about
3. Come up with actions we can take to influence Mexico's joining of TPP
4. And this will be at Facultad de Ingenier a. Another explicit goal of this session will be, of course, to bring the topic closer to the students!

We want you! So... I am posting this message also as a plead for help. Do you think you can participate here? Were you among the local organizers for the anti-SOPA movement? Do you have some insight on TPP you can share? Do you have some gear to film+encode the talks? (as they will surely be interesting!) Or, is the topic just interesting for you? Well, please come and join us! So, again: Friday, 2012-05-03, 10:00-15:00

Attachment	Size
Poster. Desgin by Gacela Thanks!	457.49 KB
Infography about TPP distributed by the EFF	392.45 KB
"Here, let me sign this for you". Image by Colin Beardon.	27.08 KB

Excuse me for the rush and lack of organization... But this kind of things don't always allow for proper planning. So, please bear with my chaos ;-) What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Yet another secretely negotiated international agreement that, among many chapters, aims at pushing a free-market based economy, as defined by a very select few Most important to me, and to many of my readers: It includes important chapters on intellectual property and online rights. Hundreds of thousands of us along the world took part in different ways on the (online and "meat-space") demonstrations against the SOPA/PIPA laws back in February 2012. We knew back then that a similar project would attempt to bite us back: Well, here it is. Only this time, it's not only covering copyright, patents, trademark, reverse engineering, etc. TPP is basically a large-scale free trade agreement on steroids. The issue that we care about now is just one of its aspects. Thus, it's way less probable we can get a full stop for TPP as we got for SOPA. But we have to get it on the minds of as many people as possible! Learn more with this infography distributed by the EFF. Which countries? The countries currently part of TPP are Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam And, of course, the USA. Mexico, Canada and Japan are in the process of joining the partnership. A group of Mexican senators are travelling to Lima to take part of this round. What are we doing about it? As much as possible! I tried to tune in with Peru's much more organized call The next round of negotiations will be in Lima, Peru, between May 14 and 24. Their activities are wildly more organized than ours: They are planning a weekend-long Camping for Internet freedom, with 28 hours worth of activities. As for us, our activities will be far more limited, but I still hope to have an interesting session: This Friday, we will have Aula Magna, Facultad de Ingenier a, UNAM, M xico DF, from 10AM and until 3PM. We do not have a clear speakers program, as the organization was quite rushed. I have invited several people who I know will be interesting to hear, and I expect a good part of the discussion to be a round table. I expect we will:

1. Introduce people working on different corners of this topic
2. Explain in some more detail what TPP is about
3. Come up with actions we can take to influence Mexico's joining of TPP
4. And this will be at Facultad de Ingenier a. Another explicit goal of this session will be, of course, to bring the topic closer to the students!

We want you! So... I am posting this message also as a plead for help. Do you think you can participate here? Were you among the local organizers for the anti-SOPA movement? Do you have some insight on TPP you can share? Do you have some gear to film+encode the talks? (as they will surely be interesting!) Or, is the topic just interesting for you? Well, please come and join us! Some more informative links

• What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?
• #yaraTPP, #internetesnuestra
• Qu hay de malo con el #TPP?
Video explicativo: "Will TPP turn Internet service providers into copyright cops?"
• La DMCA (norma de derechos de autor de USA) es a n peor de lo que piensas. Informate de c mo la DMCA convierte en ilegal el acceso a contenido a personas con discapacidades

BE THERE! So, again: Friday, 2012-05-03, 10:00-15:00 [Update] So, 2012-05-03 came and went. And thankfully, Alfredo was there to record most of the talk! So, you can download the video: Gunnar Wolf, Salvador Alc ntar: Qu es TPP? Por qu me debe preoucpar? Qu podemos hacer?

Attachment	Size
Poster. Design by Gacela Thanks!	457.49 KB
Infography about TPP distributed by the EFF	392.45 KB
"Here, let me sign this for you". Image by Colin Beardon.	27.08 KB

Some more Qt 5 packages have entered Debian experimental:

• qtdeclarative
• qtgraphicaleffects
• qtsvg

One of the things I do with computers is "do stuff with music". I'm not a professional musician by any means, but I do sometimes have a need for some software to do some music editing. In the past, that meant using GNU LilyPond; and while that's certainly an interesting piece of software, it has some idiosyncracies that have made me dislike it in the past. So when I learned about PMW, written by Philip Hazel (of PCRE and Exim fame) I was intrigued. PMW has several advantages over lilypond, in my opinion. To name but two: its syntax is less silly, and it takes far less time to convert something from source to graphic, to the extent that I've considered creating an editor which would update the result after every keystroke, something that just isn't possible with lilypond. The decision to upload pmw into Debian was just a no-brainer, and it's saved me some time since, already. Enjoy!

With some new patches from just oddles of interested hackers, there are some hot new changes, including a major mode for emacs and a hot new bot. I m currently blocking stuff while I m in the middle of the compiler, but new feature development will be wide open soon! Check out Hy, play with the source, install it with pip, and consider doing awesome stuff!

Collabora recently had a problem with a project's ARM build farm. In a nice change of pace it was not that the kernel was crashing, nor indeed any of the software or hardware.
The ProblemInstead our problem was our build farm could best be described as "a pile of stuff" and we wanted to add more systems to it and have switched power control for automated testing.

Which is kinda where the Christopher Alexander quote comes into this. I suggested that I might be able to come up with a better, or at least cleaner, solution.
The IdeaPrevious experience had exposed me to the idea of using 19 inch subracks for mounting circuits inside submodules.

I originally envisaged the dev boards individually mounted inside these boxes. However preliminary investigation revealed that the enclosures were both expensive and used a lot of space which would greatly increase the rack space required to house these systems.

I decided to instead look at eurocard type subracks with carriers for the systems. Using my 3D printer I came up with a carrier design for the imx53 QSB and printed it. I used the basic eurocard size of 100mm x 160mm which would allow the cards to be used within a 3U subrack.

Once assembled it became apparent that each carrier would be able to share resources like power supply, ethernet port and serial console via USB just as the existing setup did and that these would need to be housed within the subrack.
The PrototypeThe carrier prototype was enough to get enough interest to allow me to move on to the next phase of the project. I purchased a Schroff 24563-194 subrack kit and three packs of guide rails from Farnell and assembled it.

Initially I had envisaged acquiring additional horizontal rails from Schroff which would enable constructing an area suitable for mounting the shared components behind the card area.

Unfortunately Schroff have no suitable horizontal profiles in their catalog and are another of those companies who seem to not want to actually sell products to end users but rather deal with wholesalers who do not have their entire product range!

Undaunted by this I created my own horizontal rail profile and 3D printed some lengths. The profile is designed to allow a 3mm thick rear cover sheet attached with M2.5 mounting bolts and fit rack sides in the same way the other profiles do.

At this point I should introduce some information on how these subracks are dimensioned. A standard 19 inch rack (as defined in IEC 60297) has a width of 17.75 inches(450.85mm) between the vertical posts. The height is measured in U (1.75 inches)

A subrack must obviously fit in the horizontal gap while providing as much internal space as possible. A subrack is generally either 3 or 6 U high. The width within a subrack is defined in units called HP (Horizontal Pitch) which are 0.2 inches(5.08 mm) and subracks like the Schroff generally list 84 usable HP.

However we must be careful (or actually just learn from me stuffing this up ;-) as the usable HP is not the same thing as the actual length of the horizontal rails! The enclosures actually leave and additional 0.1 inch at either end giving a total internal width of 85HP (17 inches, 431.8 mm) which leaves 0.75 inches for the subrack sides and some clearance.

The Schroff subrack allows eurocards to be slotted into rails where the card centre line is on HP boundaries, hence we describe the width of a card in the slot in terms of HP
I cannot manufacture aluminium extrusions (I know it is a personal failing) nor produce more than 100 mm long length of the plastic profile on my printer.

Even if full lengths are purchased from a commercial service (120 euros for a pair including tax and shipping) the plastic does not have sufficient mechanical strength.

The solution I came up with was somewhat innovative, as an alternative a M5 bolt into a thread in the aluminium extrusion I used a 444mm long length of 4mm threaded rod with nuts at either end. This arrangement puts the extrusion under compression and gives it a great deal of additional mechanical strength as the steel threaded rod is very strong.

Additionally to avoid having to print enough extrusion for the entire length I used some 6mm aluminium tube as a spacer between 6HP(30.48mm) wide sections of the printed extrusion.

It was intended to use a standard modular PC power supply which is 150mm wide which is pretty close to 30HP (6 inches) so it was decided to have a 6HP section of rail at that point to allow a rear mounting plate for the PSU to be attached.

This gives 6HP of profile, 21HP(106.68mm) of tube spacer, 6HP of profile, 46HP(233.68 mm) of tube spacer and a final 6HP profile summing to our total of 85HP. Of course this would be unnecessary if a full continuous 85HP rail had been purchased, but 6 of 6 HP long profile is only 51 euro a saving of 70 euro.

To provide a flat area on which to mount the power switching, Ethernet switch and USB hubs I ordered a 170 x 431 mm sheet of 3mm thick aluminium from inspiredsteel who, while being an ebay company, were fast, cheap and the cutting was accurate.

Do be sure to mention you would prefer it if any error made the sheet smaller rather than larger or it might not fit, for me though they were accurate to the tenth of a mm! If you would prefer the rear section of the rack to be enclosed when you are finished, buy a second sheet for the top. For my prototype I only purchased a 170 x 280mm sheet as I was unsure if I wanted a surface under the PSU (you do, buy the longer sheet)

Mounting the PSU was a simple case of constructing a 3 mm thick plate with the correct cutouts and mounting holes for an ATX supply. Although the images show the PSU mounted on the left hand side of the rack this was later reversed to improve cable management.

The subrack needed to provide Ethernet switch ports to all the systems. A TP-Link TL-SF1016DS 16-Port 10/100Mbps Switch was acquired and the switch board removed from its enclosure. The switch selected has an easily removed board and is powered by a single 3.3V input which is readily available from the ATX PSU.

Attention now returned to the eurocard carriers for the systems, the boards to be housed were iMX53 QSB and iMX6 SABRE Lite and a Raspberry Pi control system to act as USB serial console etc.

The carriers for both main boards needed to be 8HP wide, comprised of:

• Combined USB and Ethernet Jack on both boards was 30 mm tall
• PCB width of 2mm
• underside components of 4mm
• clearance between boards of 2mm

A wiring loom was constructed for each board giving them a connector tail long enough to allow them to be removed. This was the wrong approach! if you implement this design (or when I do it again) the connector tails on the wiring loom should present all the connections to the rear at the same depth as the Ethernet connection.

The rack cables themselves should be long enough to allow the slides to be removed but importantly it is not desirable to have the trailing cable on the cards. I guess the original eurocard designers figured this out as they designed the cards around the standard fixed DIN connectors at the back of the card slots.

We will now briefly examine a misjudgement that caused the initially deployed solution to be reimplemented. As the design was going to use USB serial converters to access the serial console a USB connected relay board was selected to switch the power to each slot. I had previously used serial controlled relay boards with a USB serial convertor however these were no longer available.

All the available USB relay boards were HID controlled, this did not initially seem to be an issue and Linux software was written to provide a reasonable interface. However it soon became apparent that the firmware on the purchased board was very buggy and crashed the host computer's USB stack multiple times.

Deployed solutionOnce it became apparent that the USB controlled power board was not viable a new design was conceived. As the Ethernet switch had ports available Ethernet controlled relay boards were acquired.

It did prove necessary to design and print some PCB support posts with M3 nut traps to allow the relay boards to be easily mounted using double sided adhesive pads.

By stacking the relay boards face to face and the Ethernet switch on top separated using nylon spacers it was possible to reduce the cable clutter and provide adequate cable routing space.

A busbar for Ground (black) and unswitched 12V (yellow) was constructed from two lengths of 5A chock block.

An issue with power supply stability was noted so a load resistor was added to the 12V supply and an adhesive thermal pad used to attach it to the aluminium base plate.

It was most fortunate that the ethernet switch mounting holes lined up very well with the relay board mounting holes allowing for a neat stack.

This second edition is the one currently in use, it has proved reliable in operation and has been successfully updated with additional carriers.

The outstanding issues are mainly centered around the Raspberry Pi control board:

• Needs its carrier fitting. It is currently just stuck to the subrack end plate.
• Needs its Ethernet cable replacing. The existing one has developed a fault post installation.
• Needs the USB hub supply separating from the device cable. The current arrangement lets the hub power the Pi which means you cannot power cycle it.
• Connect its switched supply separately to the USB hub/devices.

Shopping listThe final bill of materials (excluding labour and workshop costs) which might be useful to anyone hoping to build their own version.

Prices are in GBP currency converted where appropriate and include tax at 20% and delivery to Cambridge UK and were correct as of April 2013.

The purchasing was not optimised and for example around 20GBP could be saved just by ordering all the shapeways parts in one order.

Base subrack
Item	Supplier	Quantity	Line Price
Schroff 24563-194 subrack kit	Farnell	1	41.28
Schroff 24560-351 guide rails	Farnell	3	13.65
Schroff rack rear horizontal rail	Shapeways	2	100.00
1000mm length of 4mm threaded rod	B and Q	1	1.48
170mm x 431mm x 3mm Aluminium sheet	inspired steel	2	40.00
PSU mounting plate	Shapeways	1	35.42
PCB standoff	Shapeways	4	22.30
160mm Deep Modular PC supply	CCL	1	55.76
TP-Link TL-SF1016DS 16-Port 10/100Mbps-Switch	CCL	1	23.77
8 Channel 16A Relay Board Controlled Via Ethernet	Rapid	2	126.00
Raspberry Pi	Farnell	1	26.48
USB Serial converters	CCL	10	37.40
10 port strip style USB HUB	Ebay	1	7.00
Parts for custom Ethernet cables	RS	13	26.00
Parts for custom molex power cables (salvaged from scrap ATX PSU)	Workshop	11	11.00
33R 10W wirewound resistor for dummy load	RS	1	1.26
24pin ATX female connector pre-wired	Maplin	1	2.99
Akasa double sided thermal pad	Maplin	1	5.00
Small cable tie bases	Maplin	1	6.49
Miscellaneous cable, connectors, nylon standoffs, solder, heatshrink, zip ties, nuts, washers etc.	Workshop	1	20.00
Total for subrack			603.28

The carriers are similarly not optimally priced as over five GBP each can be saved by combining shipping on orders alone. Also the SSD drive selection was made some time ago and a newer model may be more suitable.

i.MX53 QSB carrier
Item	Supplier	Quantity	Line Price
i.MX53 QSB	Farnell	1	105.52
Intel 320 SSD 80G	CCL	1	111.83
Carrier board	Shapeways	1	30.00
combined sata data and power (15 to 20cm version)	EBay	1	5.00
Low profile right angle 5.5mm x 2.1mm barrel jack	EBay	1	0.25
Parts for 9pin serial cable extension	RS	1	5.00
Miscellaneous solder, heatshrink, nylon nuts, bolts and washers	Workshop	1	5.00
Total for carrier			262.60

i.MX6 SABRE Lite carrier
Item	Supplier	Quantity	Line Price
i.MX6 SABRE Lite	Farnell	1	128.06
Intel 320 SSD 80G	CCL	1	111.83
Carrier board	Shapeways	1	35.00
combined sata data and power (15 to 20cm version)	EBay	1	5.00
Low profile right angle 5.5mm x 2.1mm barrel jack	EBay	1	0.25
Parts for 9pin serial cable modification	RS	1	2.00
Miscellaneous solder, heatshrink, nylon nuts, bolts and washers	Workshop	1	5.00
Total for carrier			287.14

ConclusionThe solution works and in a 3U high 355mm deep subrack ten ARM development boards can be racked complete with local ethernet switching, power control and serial consoles.

The solution is neat and provides flexibility, density and reproducibility the "pile of stuff" solution failed to do.

For current prototype with nine filled slots the total cost was around 3000GBP or around 330GBP per slot which indicates a 100GBP per slot overhead over the "pile of stuff" solution. These figures omit the costs of the engineer and workshop time, which are estimated at an additional 1500GBP. Therefore a completed rack, fully filled with i.MX6 carriers costs around 5000GBP

Density could be increased if boards with lower height requirements were used however above twelve units there issues with Ethernet switch, power switch and USB port availability become a factor. For Example the 16 port Ethernet switch requires a port for uplink, one for each relay board and one for the console server which leaves only 12 ports for systems.

Addressing the outstanding issues would result in a much more user friendly solution. As the existing unit is in full time use and downtime is not easily scheduled for all ten systems, the issues are not likely to be fixed on the prototype and would have to be solved on a new build.

The solution is probably not suitable for turning into a product but that was not really the original aim. A commercial ARM blade server using this format would almost certainly use standard DIN connectors and a custom PCB design rather than adapting existing boards.

(Debian) packaging and Git. The big picture is as follows. In my view, the most natural way to work on a packaging project in version control [1] is to have an upstream branch which either tracks upstream Git/Hg/Svn, or imports of tarballs (or some combination thereof, and a Debian branch where both modifications to upstream source and commits to stuff in ./debian are added [2]. Deviations from this are mainly motivated by a desire to export source packages, a version control neutral interchange format that still preserves the distinction between upstream source and distro modifications. Of course, if you're happy with the distro modifications as one big diff, then you can stop reading now gitpkg $debian_branch $upstream_branch and you're done. The other easy case is if your changes don't touch upstream; then 3.0 (quilt) packages work nicely with ./debian in a separate tarball. So the tension is between my preferred integration style, and making source packages with changes to upstream source organized in some nice way, preferably in logical patches like, uh, commits in a version control system. At some point we may be able use some form of version control repo as a source package, but the issues with that are for another blog post. At the moment then we are stuck with trying bridge the gap between a git repository and a 3.0 (quilt) source package. If you don't know the details of Debian packaging, just imagine a patch series like you would generate with git format-patch or apply with (surprise) quilt. From Git to Quilt. The most obvious (and the most common) way to bridge the gap between git and quilt is to export patches manually (or using a helper like gbp-pq) and commit them to the packaging repository. This has the advantage of not forcing anyone to use git or specialized helpers to collaborate on the package. On the other hand it's quite far from the vision of using git (or your favourite VCS) to do the integration that I started with. The next level of sophistication is to maintain a branch of upstream-modifying commits. Roughly speaking, this is the approach taken by git-dpm, by gitpkg, and with some additional friction from manually importing and exporting the patches, by gbp-pq. There are some issues with rebasing a branch of patches, mainly it seems to rely on one person at a time working on the patch branch, and it forces the use of specialized tools or workflows. Nonetheless, both git-dpm and gitpkg support this mode of working reasonably well [3]. Lately I've been working on exporting patches from (an immutable) git history. My initial experiments with marking commits with git notes more or less worked [4]. I put this on the back-burner for two reasons, first sharing git notes is still not very well supported by git itself [5], and second Gitpkg maintainer Ron Lee convinced me to automagically pick out what patches to export. Ron's motivation (as I understand it) is to have tools which work on any git repository without extra metadata in the form of notes. Linearizing History on the fly. After a few iterations, I arrived at the following specification.

• The user supplies two refs upstream and head. upstream should be suitable for export as a .orig.tar.gz file [6], and it should be an ancestor of head.
• At source package build time, we want to construct a series of patches that
  1. Is guaranteed to apply to upstream
  2. Produces the same work tree as head, outside ./debian
  3. Does not touch ./debian
  4. As much as possible, matches the git history from upstream to head.

Condition (4) suggests we want something roughly like git format-patch upstream..head, removing those patches which are only about Debian packaging. Because of (3), we have to be a bit careful about commits that touch upstream and ./debian. We also want to avoid outputting patches that have been applied (or worse partially applied) upstream. git patch-id can help identify cherry-picked patches, but not partial application. Eventually I arrived at the following strategy.

1. Use git-filter-branch to construct a copy of the history upstream..head with ./debian (and for technical reasons .pc) excised.
2. Filter these commits to remove e.g. those that are present exactly upstream, or those that introduces no changes, or changes unrepresentable in a patch.
3. Try to revert the remaining commits, in reverse order. The idea here is twofold. First, a patch that occurs twice in history because of merging will only revert the most recent one, allowing earlier copies to be skipped. Second, the state of the temporary branch after all successful reverts represents the difference from upstream not accounted for by any patch.
4. Generate a "fixup patch" accounting for any remaining differences, to be applied before any if the "nice" patches.
5. Cherry-pick each "nice" patch on top of the fixup patch, to ensure we have a linear history that can be exported to quilt. If any of these cherry-picks fail, abort the export.

Yep, it seems over-complicated to me too. TL;DR: Show me the code. You can clone my current version from

git://pivot.cs.unb.ca/gitpkg.git

This provides a script "git-debcherry" which does the history linearization discussed above. In order to test out how/if this works in your repository, you could run

git-debcherry --stat $UPSTREAM

For actual use, you probably want to use something like

git-debcherry -o debian/patches

There is a hook in hooks/debcherry-deb-export-hook that does this at source package export time. I'm aware this is not that fast; it does several expensive operations. On the other hand, you know what Don Knuth says about premature optimization, so I'm more interested in reports of when it does and doesn't work. In addition to crashing, generating multi-megabyte "fixup patch" probably counts as failure. Notes

1. This first part doesn't seem too Debian or git specific to me, but I don't know much concrete about other packaging workflows or other version control systems.
2. Another variation is to have a patched upstream branch and merge that into the Debian packaging branch. The trade-off here that you can simplify the patch export process a bit, but the repo needs to have taken this disciplined approach from the beginning.
3. git-dpm merges the patched upstream into the Debian branch. This makes the history a bit messier, but seems to be more robust. I've been thinking about trying this out (semi-manually) for gitpkg.
4. See e.g. exporting. Although I did not then know the many surprising and horrible things people do in packaging histories, so it probably didn't work as well as I thought it did.
5. It's doable, but one ends up spending about a bunch lines of code on duplicating basic git functionality; e.g. there is no real support for tags of notes.
6. Since as far as I know quilt has no way of deleting files except to list the content, this means in particular exporting upstream should yield a DFSG Free source tree.

I don't usually blog about work, but this time around, you maxed it. When I specifically ask you to not ship goods, I have good reasons for that. Specifically:

• I'm not at my office all the time. Yes, I'm often there, but I'm also often at a customer's place (you know, so I can actually make money). When I'm not at a customer, I tend to be at the office in a noon-through-evening schedule, rather than a morning-through-late-afternoon one (I hate getting out of bed if I don't have to). Since we don't have any employees, this likely means your logistics partner will find a closed door with nobody answering the bell.
• The result of that is that we'll often find that your shipments end up at your logistics partner's warehouse. Since I have to drive to a warehouse anyway, I might as well choose to drive to the warehouse that is closest yours.
• For this "service" of shipping goods away from interesting locations, you charge 20+.

Not Happy(tm)

The first Qt 5 packages have been accepted in Debian experimental.

What's there

• qtbase-opensource-src: lib[concurrent core dbus gui network opengl printsupport sql test widgets xml], examples, development packages and debug symbols.
• qttools-opensource-src: lib[qtlucene designer help], qdbus, development headers and debugging symbols.
• qtjsbackend-opensource-src: libqt5v8-5
• qtxmlpatterns-opensource-src
• qtchooser, which allows to select between Qt4 or Qt5 at build time.

What's not there

In October I announced that starting with 3.6 kernel it was eventually safe to unplug Zenbook.
Then in bugreport I was told that Sentelic touchpad driver was included in 3.8 kernel.
And guess what I don t have to patch kernel to have working touchpad using 3.8 kernels but I have to worry about unplugging laptop cause with 3.8.x kernel it s quite common that it turns laptop off again.
So the question is do we have any regression tests in kernel?
Should I test every kernel release between 3.8.5 and 3.6.0 to find the one that incorporated that bug again?

While release of Debian wheezy getting is closer and closer, Cupt's development version also moves forward bit by bit.

A couple of particularly interesting features -- showing full reason chains and functional selectors -- may be summarized by this screenshot.

And, as a fresh experiment, I placed a feature to widen functional selecting capabilities to Catincan, a (new?) crowdfunding platform for open source projects. Let's see how it goes.

A colleague of mine at Facultad de Ingenier a pointed me to a note published in the Faculty's gazette about a short cycle of talks we had on April 4th, trying to get life and interest back in the once-active LIDSOL (Laboratorio de Investigaci n y Desarrollo en Software Libre, Free Software Research and Development Laboratory), which nowadays lies mostly dormant. Good thing the official communication channels got notice of this! Only I am not sure if they can properly produce Spanish (as this feels more like an English redaction). Quoting only the first lines of the paragraph that referes to me:

La ltima conferencia fue presentada por Gunnar Wolf, que aunque su nombre nos hiciera pensar en una nacionalidad europea, l es nacido en tierras mexicanas pero con descendencias h ngaras, austriacas y polacas.

Which translates to:

The last talk was presented by Gunnar Wolf, that although he has a name that makes us think about an European nationality, he was born in Mexican soil, but with Hungarian, Austriac and Polish descent.

As far as I can tell (and I am almost sure I know all of the story At least on that regard), I have no descent yet. Not Hungarian, Austriac, Polish, nor of any nationality. (nitpickers: Yes, similar words are often used. In Spanish, it would be correct to say de ascendencia h ngara, austriaca y polaca, and in my attempt towards English translation, it would be of Hungarian, Austriac and Polish descent).