Selfhosted

61959 readers

933 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Self-Host Weekly (4 September 2026) by @eshol (selfh.st)

submitted 2 days ago by jogai_san@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The Debian vote was so stupid:

Option A: Psychotic breakdown
Option B: Ethical impracticality
Option C: Political extremism
Option D: Two contradictory things at once
Option E: Something that doesn't prevent the other options but packaged with something nasty and unpalatable
Option F: Sensible but ultimately vague and action-less common place neutrality.
Option G: Nuclear option
Option H: Do nothing

It was such a brain dead exercise in futility. It was designed for the winner from the start.

Nussbaun's comment on the result is hilariously dull:

On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.

The GR results give us raw numbers about our opinion, and a direction, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to act as a community and understand how we can continue to accommodate the very large minority that would have preferred to ban or discourage AI.

Lucas

¹ obligatory disclosure: the script used is AI-generated

Yeah, the option that doesn't say anything won. Who knew?…wait yes, mathematicians, they knew. The most important part of a survey is choosing the options carefully.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How was it "designed for the winner"? Proposals to a resolution vote are submitted and seconded, with no restrictions on who, how many or what proposals are added, you just have to be a voting member of the ML. You can look at the list of proposal sponsors and the seconds to see how that's done.

https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I skim them all. The options I wrote are soft parodies of what each said. There's a ton of problems with this model of governance, but I'm no voting member, so my opinion has no impact.

That said, it makes it so a single posture has to be voted on in its entirety, which is dumb (as some legislative bodies of the world have proven). As a result, nuance is erased alongside with any sense of ideological vision or compromise, and instead it promotes vagueness in every action and glacial institutions that break slowly break apart.

The very person who wrote the proposal that won reacted to winning with:

I regret the loss of contributors (which would have happened with either option winnign [sic]). It is just too early to take a final decision on the mater [sic]. Let's revisit this in two years or so, and let this mess of a GR be a warning for our future selves.

The proposal was designed to win time without having to take any real stance while taking the smallest loss of contributors in the process. And thus it was written as the most milketoast nothing burger. When an infinite set of possibilities exists that actually do address real concerns like climate impact, social impacts, copyright and legal problems related to generated code, etc. in relation to the principles and overall values of the project. Instead, they are deferring the practicalities to pull request's bickering.

But again, I'm not a voting member or contributor. So my opinion is null. I still think the way the process is designed and conducted is stupid and prone to cause the eventual failure of debian via governance collapse.