On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller wrote:
> I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
> no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
> professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
> you give me some cre
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based
> on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection
> process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a
> matter of public safe
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion peri
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion p
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
>> issues and reconsider them i
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne wrote:
> Don deJuan wrote:
>
>>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>>> result.
>>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>>> made up their minds.
>
> Objections were raised and then count
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message
will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a
polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining
the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data.
To my supporters, I'd lik
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne wrote:
> If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is
> very
> wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of
> negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself
> than risk offendin
Don deJuan wrote:
>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>> result.
>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>> made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
>
> From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could
> publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the
> sheeple just followed the "old and grumpy" man, at least that is
> "public
On 03/23/2013 09:59 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
>> Xyne wrote:
>> @TUs
>> The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
>> participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
>> admitted that h
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Xyne wrote:
> @TUs
> The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
> participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
> admitted that he may be "old and grumpy") and they were addressed without
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
>On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne wrote:
>> @TUs
>> Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
>> the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion
>> period.
>> If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of the
Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce
On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne wrote:
> @TUs
> Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
> the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period.
> If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them
> into
> account
On 23 March 2013 19:51, Xyne wrote:
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
> rejected.
I certainly didn't see this coming: I can't believe so many TUs voted
"NO" without
Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 17:51:42 schreef Xyne:
> Xyne wrote:
> >The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
> >It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
>
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM, member graysky wrote:
>
> Thanks for supporting the application, Xyne, and to those who
> participated in the subsequent discussion. I was really happy to have
> read the kind words from some of the the non-TUs who posted in support
> of me as well. Thanks guys!
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Xyne wrote:
>
>>The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
>>It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
>
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has been
Xyne wrote:
>The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
>It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
reject
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Felix Yan wrote:
> I'd been using linux-ck for more than one year since I installed Arch for the
> first time (was using zen-kernel in Ubuntu before, mainly for BFS). I got
> rapid replies from graysky on the AUR comments (before I apply for a TU) and
> really h
> Dave Reisner wrote:
>
> I'm replying to the rest of this thread with full disclosure: graysky asked
> me to sponsor him first, and I've declined based on a lack of skill and what
> I feel isn't necessary the correct attitude for an Arch TU.
I don't understand the sudden scrutiny about skill leve
I'd been using linux-ck for more than one year since I installed Arch for the
first time (was using zen-kernel in Ubuntu before, mainly for BFS). I got rapid
replies from graysky on the AUR comments (before I apply for a TU) and really
helpful.
Although I'm not using -ck patchset for months due
Xyne wrote:
>Alexander Rødseth wrote:
>
>>While not handling spaces in directory names is kinda bad
>
>+1
>*glares at certain makepkg devs*
>:P
Apparently my meatspace RAM is faulty.
s/makepkg devs/devs and TUs/
(there's a lot of unquoted $srcdir and $pkgdir variables in the official repos,
and
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
>While not handling spaces in directory names is kinda bad
+1
*glares at certain makepkg devs*
:P
Hi,
I haven't interacted much with graysky, but reported a bug against
profile-cleaner that was handled reasonably well:
https://github.com/graysky2/profile-cleaner/issues/6
While not handling spaces in directory names is kinda bad, he was "on
the ball", followed up and fixed the problem within a
On 11 March 2013 22:24, member graysky wrote:
> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
> hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU.
As the maintainer of linux-pf AUR package and unofficial repo I
happened to interact with graysky a few times in the past and I on
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> The username "graysky" sounds familiar to me, but it doesn't register
> anything negative. At one glance, though, I can derive at least one
> fact -- there have been applicants in the past much less competent. As
> such, I do not see comp
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Xyne wrote:
>>2) To claim that you're saving your precious SSD "unnecessary writes" is
>>advanced silliness. Recent controllers don't have nearly the same
>>problems early SSDs had.
>
> Phrases such as "advanced silliness" have no place in a serious technical
> di
On 12 March 2013 04:24, member graysky wrote:
> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
> hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
> started with RH and SUSE over a decade ago. I discovered Debian and
> Ubuntu. I found myself wanting more con
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
wrote:
> I'm not sure if I should take part in the discussion, as my application
> also hasn't specified anything besides packages I want to maintain, but…
>
> As long as I understand (not only) your need of privacy, I would like to
> know a
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Xyne wrote:
> I was not aware of this and I admit that my enthusiasm for the application was
> slightly diminished, but I stand by my sponsorship.
>
>
> But yeah, it would have been nice to get a full disclosure directly.
>
I didn't realize it was considered a c
On 2013-03-11 21:24, member graysky wrote:
> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
> hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
> started with RH and SUSE over a decade ago. I discovered Debian and
> Ubuntu. I found myself wanting more control
If my opinion as a mere arch user counts for anything in this thread,
I'd like to express my gratitude towards graysky for his linux-ck
repository and AUR packages. I'm running that kernel without any
problem since 2011-04-10 (from my pacman.log). Honestly when I saw his
email about applying as a T
On 11/03/13 05:52 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:24:31PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
>> hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux his
Dave Reisner wrote:
I'd like to address a few points.
>I'm replying to the rest of this with full disclosure: graysky asked me
>to sponsor him first, and I've declined based on a lack of skill and
>what I feel isn't necessarily the correct attitude for an Arch TU.
I was not aware of this and I a
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:24:31PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
> hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
> started with RH and SUSE over a decade ag
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Wallace
wrote:
> What type of packages do you plan on maintaining and what would you want
> to move into the repos first?
Good question. For starters, several I use all the time and that have
the requisite # of votes:
alsi
archey3
celtx
modprobed_db
monit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/11/2013 3:04 PM, William Giokas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
>> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this
>> list...
>
> Still bad. Try using a client, like Thunderbird or Mutt. I can
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:11:50PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, William Giokas <1007...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> >> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
> >
> > Still bad.
member graysky wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, William Giokas <1007...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
>>> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
>>
>> Still bad. Try using a client, like Thunderbird or Mutt.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:11:50PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, William Giokas <1007...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> >> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
> >
> > Still bad.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, William Giokas <1007...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
>> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
>
> Still bad. Try using a client, like Thunderbird or Mutt. I can only
> vouch for Mutt
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
>
>Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
>hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
>started with RH and SUSE over a decade ag
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:58:27PM -0400, member graysky wrote:
> Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
Still bad. Try using a client, like Thunderbird or Mutt. I can only
vouch for Mutt in respect to signing well.
>
> Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I
Sorry gang, apparently as Florian suggested, gmail is doing something
to the signed message rendering the signature "BAD." I am trying now
to directly attach the asc file to see if it works before trying a
non-http based email client. Here goes...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Try two using gmail to send an clearsigned message to this list...
Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
started with RH and SUSE over a decade ago. I di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Pritz wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi All.
>
>Your signature is bad; gmail probably mangled something.
>
>Please resend using GPG/MIME (at least enigmail with thunderbird,
>claws-mail, kmail support it).
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi All.
Your signature is bad; gmail probably mangled something.
Please resend using GPG/MIME (at least enigmail with thunderbird,
claws-mail, kmail support it).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All. Inspired by Allan's talk @ SINFO XX, I decided to throw my
hat into the ring and formally apply to be a TU. My linux history
started with RH and SUSE over a decade ago. I discovered Debian and
Ubuntu. I found myself wanting more control and
52 matches
Mail list logo