Re: Questioning the TC's power to decide on technical policy
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: If someone made arguments along those lines I would advise the Secretary to say that these things are matters for the DPL, and that if a Developer feels that the DPL has overstepped the mark they should use a General Resolution to do so. Likewise, if the TC is overzealous within its domain of authority (which clearly does include the contents of the policy manual) the proper response is a General Resolution, not for the Secretary to claim that the TC decision is void. On the other hand, a GR is heavy artillery, and should not be used unless attempts at consensus were previously made. Perhaps you should consider the inquiries as an attempt to avoid the heavy artillery, an attempt to resolve issues in a timely, civilised manner. I think all of these things are very dangerous territory for the Secretary. The Secretary should avoid getting involved in the substance of these kind of subjective disputes about what is and is not sufficiently ripe, or what is or isn't detailed design, or what is or isn't sufficient consultation. The technical committee should also avoid getting involved in the practice of detailed design, or design of new policies (and whether something can or cannot depend on some other thing *is* policy, and therefore not the jurisdiction of the CTTE, for example; unless 6.1.4 or 6.1.2 apply, and in the disputed case, neither of them do). I suggest you take your own advice, too. Also, see 7.1.3, in relation with 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 - I believe the Secretary has every right to get involved, both on his own, and on behalf of others. This is particularly the case when the complaint is not in fact being made by the policy maintainers whose toes are allegedly being stepped on; rather it is being made by one side of this unfortunate and politically charged argument because they foresee an outcome they don't like. If it is - as you say - politically charged argument, then I must strongly urge the technical committee to use and vote with the ballot the CTTE chairman posted[1] earlier, because that one is about a technical decision, about the question the committee was actually asked about in the first place, and avoids (most of) the politically charged parts. And as you are well aware of, the technical committee is a technical board, that decides on technical matters (6.1.1, 6.1.2). The constitution does not give the CTTE power to rule in politically charged matters. Those powers belong to the developers, by way of General Resolution (4.1.5). [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html -- |8] pgpXhynp1uxyL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Google contacting (harassing?) new DDs
Arno Töll a...@debian.org writes: On 10.12.2013 18:02, Enrico Zini wrote: it looks like as soon as one becomes DD, an email arrives from Google recruiters. actually it's good enough to post on Debian mailing lists. Every now and then the usual suspects [1][2] seem to write everyone appearing on list archives. They seem to contact you whenever they feel like, regardless of your prior communication. Having that said I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble to try to communicate with Google headhunters whom to contact and who not. They send what? One mail every quarter at most? That's next to nothing compared to the hundreds of real[sic!] spam mails all of us get every single day. I agree with this, it's not worth the effort trying to talk with Google headhunters; experience - mine and others' based on this thread - shows that they rarely listen. In my case, I had to blog, tweet and post on G+ to make them stop trying to contacting me, nothing else worked. For this reason, and because their spam is very, very low volume, I would find it a waste of time to try doing something about it, which they will ignore anyway. On the other hand, we could use it to our advantage, and advertise the NM process with: Join Debian, and get a Google Headhunter mail you when your account is ready! (or add something similar sent to new DDs on account creation, if you want it more subtly). That would also have the nice side effect that they'd eventually stop doing it. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eh5kmk8n.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: Hijacking packages for fun and profit
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes: Hi folks, Based on some of the *heated* discussions that have happened on the lists recently, I've organised a DebConf BoF session so we can (hopefully) have a productive session on the topic of package maintenance and how to hand over / take over packages. https://penta.debconf.org/penta/schedule/dc12/event/926.en.html Will there be a video feed of this? I'd love to hear it at least (and perhaps participate via IRC or something, if someone's willing to proxy). -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lij2awtq@luthien.mhp
unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: Why are these packages in Debian?
Thus spoke Nikos [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2003-04-07 21:21:15: Because someone packaged them, and someone uses (installed) them. Whether it is easy to find on the web, is irrelevant, as there are still people who are not connected 24/7, and prefer to install a package, and read it offline. But they are very easy to retrieve and save with every web browser. And then forgotten in a random directory. A package on the other hand, is easily identified, removed and so on. Not to mention, that if it is packaged, I can install from CD or other media, without ever launching a browser (yes, I did install boxen which never had, and never will have internet access, and I even installed the packages in question on them). It's way more convenient than browsing around, or copying from another machine, or other workarounds. And having them in Debian means that I can just do an apt-get install, instead of hunting through thousands of results on google. I typed king james bible in Google and hit I'm feeling lucky. I was browsing the text 1 second later... Google for anarchism. And, by the way, I searched for king james bible too, but neither of the first ~10 hits offered a downloadable version, only online browsing, which I'm not interested in. Nor in wgetting. Apt-get is easier. By the way, why does it hurt to have non-technical documents in an operating system? If non-technical documents are banned, the same should be done for other non-technical stuff, like games. I'm sure you wouldn't like that. So, please be so kind, and accept that your opinion is not generally accepted, and move on to something constructive.
Re: Why are these packages in Debian?
I don't understand why the packages anarchism, bible-kjv and bible-kjv-text (in section doc) are Debian packages. They are no technical documentation, they don't correspond (in my eyes) to open source's philosophy, they can be easily found on the WWW... Because someone packaged them, and someone uses (installed) them. Whether it is easy to find on the web, is irrelevant, as there are still people who are not connected 24/7, and prefer to install a package, and read it offline. And having them in Debian means that I can just do an apt-get install, instead of hunting through thousands of results on google. Also, it is your opinion that they do not correspond to open source's philosophy. Someone else might feel otherwise. (Following this argument, I could say that fancy stuff like GNOME or KDE hurt the open source community, because they don't force users to write and contribute code - as would be the True Free Software Way. This argument would be just as flawed as yours.) That is why they're in.
Re: irc.debian.org
Once again, what do you people think? aolI too, would welcome a move to OFTC./aol pgpRoN3U8q8Dq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
(Resending mail, with a hopefully verifiable signature) 4. Item proposed to vote (after the discussion period) [ ] I accept the ratification of IRC channels as a communication medium and as such they have to follow the usual Debian policies (adapted for IRC habits) I second this proposal. pgpL82vuvbD9q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel
4. Item proposed to vote (after the discussion period) [ ] I accept the ratification of IRC channels as a communication medium and as such they have to follow the usual Debian policies (adapted for IRC habits) I second this GR proposal. -- Gergely Nagy \ mhp/|8] pgpeMI37owjyR.pgp Description: PGP signature
