I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
2. Ignored evidence of ongoing work.
(specifically, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#25)
3. Pl
Joey Hess writes:
> I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
> 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
>between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
Er, what decision did we make in that bug?
The reason why I supported that resolution is that
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
>
> > I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
>
> > 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
> >between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
>
> Er, what decision did we make in that bug?
>
> The reason
I'll add that the ctte is rubber-stamping Ian's wording, when that went
*so* well last time.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014, Joey Hess wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Joey Hess writes:
> >
> > > I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
> >
> > > 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
> > >between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
> >
> > Er
Joey Hess writes:
> 4. For the moment, we invite concrete proposals for technical changes
>which would arrange that 1. new jessie installations using Linux
>would get systemd but 2. existing installations retain their
>existing init system so far as possible.
> That appears to be an
Russ Allbery writes:
> If that process leads to everyone reaching consensus on a different way
> to handle things (which would be my ideal outcome), that would be
> awesome, and we could then do nothing.
Or, to be clear, a consensus on doing things the way that they're being
done now. The point
Joey Hess writes:
> I'll add that the ctte is rubber-stamping Ian's wording, when that went
> *so* well last time.
I believe this issue is at least partly caused by the fact that the work
of the tech ctte has, for the last two years or so, been effectively
split between just two people: Ian is dr
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:49:10PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > I'll add that the ctte is rubber-stamping Ian's wording, when that went
> > *so* well last time.
> I believe this issue is at least partly caused by the fact that the work
> of the tech ctte has, for the last t
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:49:10PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Joey Hess writes:
>> > I'll add that the ctte is rubber-stamping Ian's wording, when that went
>> > *so* well last time.
>
>> I believe this issue is at least partly caused by the fact that the work
>> of t
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> In any case, as someone who has spent many long hours dealing with TC
>> business over the past two years, I categorically reject this
>> characterization that only two people are doing the work of the
>> committee.
> I'm happy to hear that. I s
11 matches
Mail list logo
