> thanks for wrinting it down, but I still think the better option is
> to spend some Debian funds to let a professional mediator handle
> this,
Great idea! IMO it should be very easy for the AH team or any DD to
ask the DPL for getting money for an external mediator if a situation
is
Thanks for this details analysis and for your suggestions for
improvements. I like especially the idea of changing the timeline and
to remove the update of the DAM statement (3. Appealer statement).
I also was wondering what "turning it into a warning" really means.
I think a warning should be
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action,
I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment.
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership
Hi,
I would like to propose a system for mediation that can be used before
or during expulsion processes, and for other purposes.
[...]
thanks for wrinting it down, but I still think the better option is
to spend some Debian funds to let a professional mediator handle
this, who is not
On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
4. NM Committee review
--
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter
in
private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
I'm
On 1/8/19 1:34 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16:
I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago
that
I would be writing this, but:
Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen
awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls
On 15276 March 1977, Thomas Lange wrote:
Do you plan an official announcement of this new procedure?
It will end up on d-d-a in a few days, provided someone doesn't find a big
flaw in it.
JFTR: Thanks Enrico for pointing me how to see the list of members
that will vote. Keep in mind that
On 15276 March 1977, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
we waive the time limit defined in §1 for the cases
from the last 6 months.
Would it make sense to have them 1 week from publishing this
instead?
Thanks for that. Yeah, that offer is not valid forever, but as we normally say
30 days, lets make it 14
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> Thanks! It's actually high on my list. I've been waiting for it to
> mature just a bit, and it seems to have. Any observations on how it
> stacks up for a production server? Anything else that strikes you as a
> particularly strong
Miles Fidelman writes:
> I was watching the discussion on systemd fairly closely. I could be
> wrong, but very little of the discussions over systemd seemed to reflect
> folks who managed production servers, or kernel developers, or developers
> of key backend software (Apache, MySQL, Postfix,
Miles Fidelman - 08.01.19, 18:16:
> > I would have been very surprised if you had told me 6 months ago
> > that
> > I would be writing this, but:
> >
> > Please consider Devuan as an alternative. You have probably seen
> > awful mails from one or two very toxic trolls pushing Devuan, but
> > the
]] Miles Fidelman
> Well, first off, the process led to the resignation of the chair of
> the Technical Committee - out of a feeling that the process had become
> too "personalized."
JFTR (since this keeps being brought up, otherwise I'd much rather we
just let this lie): Ian was not chair of
On 1/8/19 8:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've
I think that rather than writing down a procedure like this it would be
better to get some success cases of trying something along these lines.
So, for example, I'd recommend that you and people who have similar
views volunteer to be available as mediators.
Once people use your services, and you
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> On Monday, January 07, 2019 07:06:28 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Miles Fidelman writes: > On the
>> other hand, the IETF seems to do just fine - with a much larger >
>> base of participants, and a lot more room for discussion and
Dear all,
I would like to propose a system for mediation that can be used before
or during expulsion processes, and for other purposes.
Please note that while I use the word "mediation", there may be a better
one. Thus, it is not needed to reply to me that what I propose is not a
real mediation
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> we waive the time limit defined in §1 for the cases
> from the last 6 months.
Would it make sense to have them 1 week from publishing this
instead?
Kurt
Miles Fidelman writes ("Re: Censorship in Debian"):
> I've basically been nursing a couple of aging systems. When next I do a
> major upgrade to our server farm, It will be to something other than
> Debian. Until then, the pressure hasn't been there, and I've been -
> I've been waiting and
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:14:53 +0100, Joerg Jaspert
> said:
> On 15276 March 1977, Thomas Lange wrote:
>> I think you should forward this mail to nm-commit...@nm.debian.org.
> Noted, but I think it makes more sense to point them at this whenever
such an
> appeal
On 05/01/2019 21:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I also have a lot of sympathy for people who feel they have been marginalized
> and it being worth working on making them feel welcome/not marginalized, but
> I
> think it has limits (and maybe this is the core of my concern relative to the
>
On 2019/01/08 13:38, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> If that's the case, are you talking about multiple appeals from people
>> who have had their membership revoked, or is it that I interpreted it
>> wrong and that anyone can appeal?
>
> I'm clarifying the corner case in which two people have had their
>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:21:20PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> If I read the original text correctly in item 1 above, it seems that
> only the person who's rights got revoked can appeal?
Yes, correct.
> If that's the case, are you talking about multiple appeals from people
> who have had
On 2019/01/08 12:43, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
>> --
>> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
>> appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating
>> why they disagree with the decision in a
On 2019-01-08 11:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states
>>> that:
>>>
>>> "4. Our priorities are our users and free
Reply in-line :-
On 08/01/2019, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
>Hey.
>
Dear Rhonda,
> Even while I write at some spots in "we" term (where I am mostly
> referring to with my diversity team hat on) this is still primarily my
> own reply. Especially in the cases where I use the "I" term explicitly.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
> appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating
> why they disagree
On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly
states that:
"4. Our priorities are our users and free software
…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly
states that:
"4. Our priorities are our users and free software
…
I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the
breach, with decisions
Hey.
Even while I write at some spots in "we" term (where I am mostly
referring to with my diversity team hat on) this is still primarily my
own reply. Especially in the cases where I use the "I" term explicitly.
* shirish शिरीष [2019-01-07 21:09:22 CET]:
> I along with others also opined
On 1/7/19 11:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
On 1/7/19 10:06 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Speaking as someone who is a listed author on three published RFCs and
chaired one IETF working group, I will take Debian process over IETF
process any day, and find your description of the
On 1/7/19 10:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
I think you're minimizing the level of investment & commitment it takes
to either use Debian, particularly in production, and even more,
minimizing the efforts of upstream, and kernel, developers upon whom
Debian ultimately
31 matches
Mail list logo
