Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Hi, Reading zack's platform, it makes me wonder why would you (Gergely and Wouter) actually need to be elected as a DPL to do what you mention on your platforms. Especially Wouter: you even state that you want to do some things the way zack has been doing them. So, the questions are: * Why do you think you need to be elected as a DPL to do what you propose? * If not elected, would you pursue your goals anyway? * If zack was re-elected, would you follow his initiative to share DPL activities with others? Thanks. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jjjcc4$kcr$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Question to all the candidates: communication
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Wise wrote: > Debian has a lot of project communications media; lists, forums, IRC, > planet, bts, RT. There are also a lot of external communications media > covering Debian; news media, , social networks, blogs, microblogging > sites & non-IRC chat, video sites and so on. [...] I want to add another question to the list: How, how often, and when do you intend to communicate with the project? (please continue reading to understand the context) In the past there have been "Bits from the DPL" emails which have been nice, but during the last couple of years there have also been some press interviews to the DPL and statements made which have come as a surprise to everybody. What do _you_ plan to do? Regards, - -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkudGfkACgkQYy49rUbZzlqJmQCgher0ETYAlIn5sG0xbgc1PiPK 9NUAn2AmgyZjjQeX+kG59mzw/XRGs8cU =fWgp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hnj5lo$6m...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Question to all Candidates: 2IC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Margarita Manterola wrote: > I do plan, however, to delegate many tasks. Both in the > constitutional and in the everyday use of the word. [...] > So, while not having a particular appointed 2IC, I do plan to ask a > lot of people for help on the many things I'd like to accomplish. And > I also do plan to mention, thank and appreciate all the help received, > no matter how small the task. What tasks do you have in mind that you plan to delegate? Regards, - -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkubHoUACgkQYy49rUbZzlq8NACeNP4C2aZySROOMkmRKIVg5L5D qa4An2x8Rm2TS2LQeZxSOqB9RdNm1kuL =C6ZD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hnf6q7$9m...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project > actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would > fall out from the position the project take about the foundation > documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied the > proposal below, apparently this is not a universally held view. > +1! [...] > > ,[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ] > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > | social contract is a statement of principle only, and has no particular I think "is a statement of principle only" weakens too much the pourpose of the SC. What about: ,[ nice title here ] | The developers, via a general resolution, hold true the promise made in | point one of the social contract, and determine that everyday work including | the one that turns in to the so called releases, include their best efforts | to accomplish the promise. ` Goal: accomplish the promise, as it has not yet been fully accomplished. Cheers, - -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklMXpoACgkQYy49rUbZzloOoACgmxl5ryslRhD2fBPMBisEhA5j NhIAnjFPvqhixdfYbt9DpRHgDkuiWnQ6 =V0/u -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
[NO CC, please] Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote: >> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take >> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware >> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG >> redistributable firmware can belong in firmware-nonfree. > > Do we have an ironclad commitment to not add any additional non-DFSG > firmware, period, no matter what? I would accept a compromise which > guaranteed an increasing slope. But not a back-and-forth thing. Your > reply focuses on regression issues, so is that really sufficient? We > guarantee that, say, there will always be *less* non-DFSG firmware in > each release, and we guarantee that there will never be *new* non-DFSG > firmware. > First of all sorry for mentioning it here. But doesn't 2.6.27 partially solve the issue by moving all that stuff to firmware/? it could easily be stripped from the tarball and moved to some other package. Not that I'm an expert in the field, but I haven't seen anyone mentioning the .27 change before in the thread. > > Thomas Cheers, Raphael Geissert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Hello, If this proposition is approved I would recommend to make the uploaded packages go into a queue of at least two days. By entering the queue it will let the maintainer to remove the uploaded package from the queue if there was something wrong with it (let's say something as simple as a typo in the version entry in the debian/changelog). Or also to let DD's remove the package in case it's needed. This would be very helpful and would possibly prevent some 'damages' that I don't even want to think about. Some reasons why a package could possible be removed: * Package with malicious code * Any kind of errors during the packaging (typos, wrong files, etc). Note: I'm not registered, so CC-me when replying. -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html pgp6QjHq8HQ8M.pgp Description: PGP signature
