On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 07:02:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 3. Access controls to source code repositories are not something in the
>regular domain of the Technical Committee. However, in this case the
>decision was delegated by the Project Leader to the Technical
>Committee as ap
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060515 07:41]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > sorry for top-quoting. but network is here at debconf a bit flaky
> > currently at Debconf. I spoke with Frans about this request
Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> Well, I read the "you can go to the tech ctte" as a delegation by the
> DPL.
Err, I suppose so. In any case, your proposed resolution does no harm
and some good, so I hereby second it. (I&#x
Package: tech-ctte
Ok, this is an attemtp to statuate on the problematic which has been opposing
me and the d-i team on the subject of the commit access to the d-i repository.
The decision to remove my svn commit access was done in order to solve a
social problem, and lacks any technical reasonin
Here's a draft, which I hereby propose.
WHEREAS
1. Sven Luther complains that he has been deprived of commit access to
debian-installer's svn repository.
2. Access controls, and changes to them, are a standard response to
sociopolitical problems and it is not for the TC to overrule those
* Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-12 12:04]:
> 5. The Project Leadership should make a decision to uphold or overturn
>the revocation of Sven's access.
The DPL has already agreed that the decision of the d-i team was
sound, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html
Martin Michlmayr writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> The DPL has already agreed that the decision of the d-i team was
> sound, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html
Aha! Right, well, I withdraw my earlier resolution and propose
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:54:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 8. We are disappointed that the complainant did not bring the prior
>discussion - particularly, the decision by the Leader - to our
>attention. We would ask all disputants, when bringing a matter to
>the TC, to provide comp
Sven Luther writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> Do you want to have the full threads or copy of all the involved emails in
> addition or something ? How will the social mess help you in determining the
> technical nature of this request ?
Since I do
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:38:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, this is an attemtp to statuate on the problematic which has been
> opposing me and the d-i team on the subject of the commit access to the
> d-i repository.
> The decision to remove my svn commit access was done in order to solve
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:58:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:38:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Ok, this is an attemtp to statuate on the problematic which has been
> > opposing me and the d-i team on the subject of the commit access to the
> > d-i repository.
uld make
a real ruling on that topic, as this would finally settle the issue.
Cheers,
Andi
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060512 16:16]:
> Martin Michlmayr writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> > The DPL has already agreed that the decision of th
I would like to add a few points to this discussion for public record.
This is not just about a personal conflict between Sven and me, but
between Sven and several core members of the d-i team. There are two
other members of the team that have Sven in their killfile and on /ignore
on IRC.
As S
> [1] A more complete log of the discussion about that revocation is
> available from:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00324.html
Sorry, wrong URL (though not irrellevant). This one is correct:
http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/sven-revokes-js-svn-from-kernel
pgpqM1SdHKzK
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 07:28:28PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> A last point is that I'm somewhat surprised that Sven should see removal
> of SVN access as unacceptable, as he did exactly the same thing to a
> member of the kernel team some time ago after a conflict that, though it
> had a technica
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > [1] A more complete log of the discussion about that revocation is
> > available from:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00324.html
>
> Sorry, wrong URL (though not irrellevant). This one is correct:
> http://w
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 07:28:28PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> As to Sven's request to remove some of his contributions from the d-i
> repository, IMO there is absolutely no basis for that:
> - any contributions to open source (sub)projects become part of that
> project
> - the relevant components
Sven Luther writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> As i startedto reply to Ian yesterday, no, i won't start a GR as is [...]
`As is' ?
> I am not sure about a GR to solve this problem
If you are so confident that you have been griev
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:45:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Luther writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> > As i startedto reply to Ian yesterday, no, i won't start a GR as is [...]
>
> `As is' ?
Oh, well, don't remember,
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> sorry for top-quoting. but network is here at debconf a bit flaky
> currently at Debconf. I spoke with Frans about this request, and Frans
> would accept / prefer if we do a real decision about
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:02:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> He said (in private) that the the way i communicated had nothing to do with
> it, and i understand that this is exactly what is reproached to me in this
> whole mess, so i have no idea what is reproached to me here.
Communications invo
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:45:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sven Luther writes ("Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> > As i startedto reply to Ian yesterday, no, i won't start a GR as is [...]
Ian, ...
For some reason i cannot reply to you priva
> Note that the TC can't decide to make a binding ruling on any matter
> it pleases. We can issue statements of non-binding opinion of course,
> but I don't think that's what's needed here. And we can make a
> decision when the person responsibile has delegated it to us.
>
> Is that what's happe
23 matches
Mail list logo
