On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 04:13:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Andreas Barth schrieb:
> > > In case any of the proposals get enough seconds, I would propose then:
> > >
> > > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > > | against each other. However during g
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
>> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
>> in question served in the first place.
>
> The basic difference i
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:06:36PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >
> > It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are
> > known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the
> > Release Team ("lenny-ignore" tag).
>
> Please stop this fud. As everyone kno
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:31:59 +0100]:
> But no, you just carried on and ignored my concerns. Thank you, Robert.
Let's be more a bit more constructive: you say you act out of alarm by
seeing the release team take some decisions for the project. I claim
that the Release Team is entitle
* Lars Wirzenius [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:42:30 +0200]:
> ti, 2008-11-11 kello 16:39 +0100, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
> > Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not
> > agree with you in not sharing that view?
> It is to determine the will of the project as a whole th
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:39:40PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'm responding to this by proposing the following alternate option:
>
> | The Social Contract is our promise to the free software community.
> |
> | Neither the Release Team, nor any selected group of individuals, is
> | empowered to
ti, 2008-11-11 kello 16:39 +0100, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti:
> Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not
> agree with you in not sharing that view?
It is to determine the will of the project as a whole that we have the
GR process. Until then, it's all speculation.
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> that complies with the DFSG".
Yes. Without that clause, one can say we could ship something
like nv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan wrote:
> If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to
> make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1].
Please stop repeating in an endless loop that the Release Team must focus
on SC #1, wh
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600]:
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progre
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23:26PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >
> And that if we release now, the glibc code which we ship will be free
> shortly, without having to update stable, whereas the code shipped in
> the kernel won't be free in Lenny, however long we wait (because the
> solution is
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:39:58PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> you say you act out of alarm by
> seeing the release team take some decisions for the project. I claim
> that the Release Team is entitled to this decision, because our job is
> just copying bits of unstable/Packages.gz to testing/Pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM
> bashing?
Simple statistics: there are many DDs, but only few RMs.
Simple sociology: those who are content, don't complain.
Those also don't go in endl
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Yes, your job is only concerned about copying bits. Then again, what isn't?
I think this was just rhetoric, wasn't it? Dato mentioned bits to
stress that the Release Team "only" controls what flows from unstable
to testing, while yo
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > But if what you're trying to say is that it's not all your fault as
> > Release Team, I acknowledge that. Then again, it's a really poor
> > excuse to justify mi
* Robert Millan [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:06 +0100]:
> But, at the same time, I don't think the Release Team should be allowed to
> make this kind of decisions unilaterally.
Then we should be having that vote, and nothing else, as I already
explained in [1], which you ignored. "Release Team can dec
[forwarding for Sven Luther, unedited and uncensored]
[Johannes Wiedersich]
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowere
Hi,
This email is an excerpt from Sven Luther, sent via
private email. Ths is unedited, but incomplete, I have not included the
final paragraph of that email, since I could not defend posting that,
and this is what I am comfortable sending. The eliding the final
paragraph does not, in
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM
>> bashing?
>
> I hope I didn't take part in that. I'm very happy with
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:05:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The difference being that the former is being resolved with a
> license change, and the latter is being resolved with code changes, and
> will require adjustments to the infrastructure. That makes the former
> a faster
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
> in question served in the first place.
The basic difference is that in one case it is th
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license
> > that complies with the DFSG".
>
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:48:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>>
>> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
>> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
>> in question served in
On Tue, Nov 11 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2
>> > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a lic
Dear all,
Lucas' amendment has only 4 sponsors, so technically I can start to call for a
vote. My position about this amendment is that if it can not get enough
sponsors, it does not has chances to win, and as I would prefer that this GR is
not a poll, I will not include it by myself.
I therefore
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> > With binary blobs inside or outside of debian, my computer will run just
> > the same. It's just that outside main it won't be supported by debian --
> > at least not officially. It
27 matches
Mail list logo
