Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. > Seconded. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to >do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical >interest by any process which provides sufficient opportunity for >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification. > I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to Debian Developers. Anything of historical interest is likely to involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is considered, and they should probably have a say. Cheers, Julien
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 19:41:16 +, Neil McGovern wrote: > Hi Sam, > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > > This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I > > think this is an important issue. > > > > My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments > > you received. > > > > nontrivial ongoing discussion at that time, I am likely to propose a > > resolution based on your text. Obviously if between now and then > > someone makes it clear why we should delay or something like that I'll > > listen and consider the input. > > > > My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped. > > > > This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it was agreed > to defer this until the current GR has quietened down. See > http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html > I hope the project membership is not bound by tech-ctte irc meetings. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] GR: diversity statement for the Debian Project
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 20:32:41 +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > Q: What will be the procedure for maintaining/updating the statement, > once voted? > A: The gist of the statement will be fixed by the GR. But in order to > avoid needing a vote for every minor tweak, language improvements can be > applied by the -www team as for other parts of www.d.o and more > substantial changes, that do not change the spirit, can be discussed on > -project. > I hope if this gets approved by a GR, any later changes would have to go through the same procedure. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to get a new ballot?
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 22:36:18 +0200, Thomas Weber wrote: > Hi, > according to the original mail at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/10/msg4.html > I should be able to get a fresh ballot by sending a mail to > bal...@vote.debian.org > with the subject > gr_nonpackagers > > (At least that's how I understand it. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be > pointed to additional documentation. Thanks in advance.) > > Anyway, here's what I got: > > : > 70.103.162.29_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_no_vote_is_currently_running/Giving_up_on_70.103.162.29./ > > I think Neil fixed this yesterday. Try again? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Second Call for Votes - GR: Debian project members
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 13:34:26 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > In previous years, votes had statistical data collected in real > time, which was then presented hourly in graphs of votes recieved and > peoploe who had currently voted. The link to the graphs and running > vote data used to be on the call for votes. Is statistical data of the > ongoing vote stil being colected? If so, could a link to the graphs be > made public, please? > http://master.debian.org/~secretary/gr_nonpackagers/ Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: financing of development
Raphael, On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 17:52:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote: > > However, if it's seen as a "Debian" thing, instead of an external > > thing like GSoC is, then it might lead to some resentment from the > > side of the people that don't get any money for their work. > > How can you avoid this? If you request donations for a specific purpose > (projects improving Debian), how can you avoid being seen as a Debian > thing? > Compare "Random Joe Developer is soliciting funding for his debian work" vs "Debian is soliciting funding for Random Joe Developer's debian work". The former is fine IMO, has no risk of being seen as a "Debian" thing, and can be done without involving the DPL or anyone besides Random Joe. Why do you think Debian as a project, or the DPL, should be involved in this? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All candidates: Membership procedures
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 00:56 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > In terms of the right to vote in Debian, I'm thinking that does need > to be earned by an obvious long-term commitment to the project. Maybe > a minimum count of packages uploaded, or strings translated, or web > pages written over a 1-year period would work for that. The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we need done and that doesn't involve uploading packages. Not that I have a better metric, mind you. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Q: Raphaë l Hertzog: dpkg / collab-maint
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:14:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Furthermore the average skillset of the DD includes packaging while it > doesn't necessarily include programming and maintaining a complex piece of > software like dpkg. > Doesn't the average skillset of a DD include knowing not to touch a complex piece of software like dpkg if he's not skilled enough? If not, shouldn't the average DD be also prevented from NMUing a complex piece of software like dpkg? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical committee resolution
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 20:03:57 -0400, Hubert Chathi wrote: > OK, the rest of your mail sounds somewhat reasonable, to an outsider who > has no experience whatsoever with TC, but ... given that the TC often > deals with contentious issues, and there is no obvious "right" or > "wrong", how would you measure how often a TC member is "wrong"? Who > determines if they're wrong? Or am I missing something? > "wrong" in this context means "disagrees with Ian". Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unclear license status for prospective package ht2html
On Wed, Oct 3, 2007 at 15:30:34 +0200, Nicolas Duboc wrote: >Hi, > > I'm considering packaging ht2html [1] for Debian, mainly because the > Jython package I'm working on uses it to build its documentation. > Did you mean to send this to -legal? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 17:48:06 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> =
> 5.2. Appointment
>
> 1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
> 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
>post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> 3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
>may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
>{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
> 4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
>candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
>identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
>are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
>nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
>additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
> 5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
>which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
>elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
> 6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
>nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
>Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
>procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
> 7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
>A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
>as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is "None
>Of The Above".
> 8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
> =
Seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: On the "Debian Maintainers" GR
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 15:49:52 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Nacho Barrientos Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The above is the ideal situation, but if it is not possible then the > > DM starts making sense and I will support it. > > You do realize that the DM proposal solves other problems than just > the "it takes forever for a qualified NM to get upload rights", too? > Not really, no. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 22:51:04 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:03:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > and once Anthony has > > fixed the proposal so that a DM doesn't automatically get upload rights > > on all packages where he's currently listed as Maintainer/Uploader (via > > the mandatory "DM-Upload: yes" field that only a DD can add), > > I think that field might pose a problem for team-maintained packages > -- which of the persons in Uploaders: would it apply to? Or is it an > additional requirement, i.e. "if $person is a DM _and_ $package > listing her as an uploader has 'DM-Upload: yes' set, then $person may > upload $package"? > Why do people seem to think that listing people in the *Uploaders* field is a good idea if these people aren't supposed to *upload* a package? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question to all the candidates: please explain GR-2006-001
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 15:58:00 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:48:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Hi all, > > IANADD, so I don't have vote right, but I'd like to ask a question > > anyway. > > > To all candidates who wish to respond: > > > How did you vote for the GR on the GFDL[1] (GR-2006-001) > > Is this a trick question to see which candidates are willing to spoon-feed > information that's publicly available? ;) > The "why" part of the question is probably the most interesting to Francesco, and it isn't in the tally sheet. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "Gay Nigger Association of America"
On Thu, Mar 8, 2007 at 00:53:33 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I took this as the approval of the fact that you (Sam Hocevar) created > this site. It looks like you didn't read Sam's answers in this thread. See for example <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary for the upload package rules GR
On Mon, Mar 5, 2007 at 00:22:55 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > Unfortunately the FTP-masters could not not block uploads only from the DDs > doing the mass uploads, but instead had to block all excluding a few. This > had an unfortunate effect on e.g. experimental builds. > I'm not sure why you say they could not do that. AFAICS it would have involved a list of keys to block instead of a list of keys to allow, and removing a "not" in a test, which doesn't seem all that complicated. Puzzled, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary for the upload package rules GR
On Sun, Mar 4, 2007 at 23:41:26 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Bill Allombert schrieb: > > Questions raised in the discussion period that are relevant to the GR. > [...] > > Q) We should only allow source-only upload! > > > > A) This is orthogonal to this GR. If developers are not allowed to do > > combined source and binary packages uploads, this GR is moot. > > I've voted against the GR solely because of this reason. I think we > should aim for source only uploads in the long run, so consequently > voting in favor of this GR would be a step in the wrong direction. > I fear you don't understand what "orthogonal" means. This GR is neither a step in the "right" direction, nor a step in the "wrong" direction. It's completely unrelated to the issue of source-only uploads. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL Debate Scheduling [Re: DPL Debate Volunteers and Format]
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 18:03:19 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > Most of the candidates have responded to my requests for scheduling > information, but: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I guess this should be <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Fri, Feb 9, 2007 at 17:17:10 +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:33:14PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > * security (I _really_ think it's nonsense, as it's not less secure > > than the usual DD's uploads, which I tried to prove) ; > > Maybe "security" in this context means "build can be reproduced by our > official buildd network and we are therefore sure our security team can > issue security updates for this package using said network". > Nobody said bin-only uploads were secure, only that they aren't less secure than bin+source uploads, which is also true for your definition of "security". Cheers, Julien pgpNpearBnNIO.pgp Description: PGP signature
