Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe we can convince more people to ignore such public statements unless
the expulsion process *actually* starts (which so far as I can tell has
yet to ever happen).
I think there have been at least two expulsion processes started,
but both have ended at step 2
It will not surprise you, A.J., that my own ballot did not rank you
particularly highly.
A.J. wrote:
So, first, thanks to all the folks who've offered congratulations ...
Let me join them.
... and thanks to everyone who participated in the election, whether
by standing for DPL, by putting
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:31:12PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian contributor
and not use Debian at all ?
No. And even if it did, I fail to see how that is relevant here. You
cannot be an active Debian contributor without knowing about its
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:33:48PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
On 2006/04/07, at 1:39, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
But requiring people who are not software developers to understand
they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a
little far fetched.
I don't see why.
Because
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:52:36AM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
On 4/7/06, Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload
privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get a say in
deciding how we conduct the
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:27:52PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
Which makes Maintainer unsuitble for translation maintainers how,
exactly?
Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly
contribute translations.
Err, no. It is generally preferred that those who translated
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt:
For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
3. Conclusions
==
(..)
I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as
possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already in the
queue waiting for an AM. (2.3) is, as I
Heya,
Problems with the New Maintainer process have been a regular topic on
Debian mailing lists in the past few months. As I'm both interested
in not reading more flamewars and actually improving things, I've
summarized my experiences and tried to come up with something that is
perhaps able to
Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 18:40, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast
as possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already
in the queue waiting for an AM.
I agree both points are a good thing, and should be
Hello,
my comments as someone planning to enter NM during the next couple of
month follow.
Overall I find your analysis enlightening. I agree with those points I
do not discuss here.
1.2.1 Add more people
[Marc argues that this is not a long solution]
I disagree here up to a certain point. I
Em Seg, 2006-04-10 às 21:30 +0200, Sven Luther escreveu:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:51:19PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
I know that having codified expulsion procedures is tempting to use
them, and I do think that they are a good thing to have. But please
consider one thing when you think
Unless you are not planning to have long term second class
developers
Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class
developers
--
Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not
originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to
address
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1 Multiple advocates
--
I agree with the rest of the suggestions, but I'm not sure that I
agree with this one... I can think of two cases where this could be
an unnecessary problem to someone who does actually
Hey Marc,
Thanks for this initiative; I'd just decided to not get involved in the
threads on -newmaint anymore because even though I feel strongly about
the issue, the threads were just a repeat of themselves. However, your
mail seems to be different, in that it comes from someone actually
On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you are not planning to have long term second class
developers
Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class
developers
No, no, no. Give someone the rights to vote or upload something for
Debian isn't consider
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 15:07 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you are not planning to have long term second class
developers
Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term second class
developers
No, no, no. Give someone
quote who=Don Armstrong date=Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:49:08PM -0700
AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to
grant developership to people with non-standard forms of
contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these
because there aren't templates or
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
1) Someone who maintains a certain number of packages, but they are
all sponsored by the same person. This person might be doing a lot of
work, and be knowledgeable about Debian without interacting actively
with anyone else apart from his/her
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do with the people
that is already waiting for DAM?), but the
On 4/11/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do with
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 02:54:07PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.1 Multiple advocates
--
I agree with the rest of the suggestions, but I'm not sure that I
agree with this one... I can think of two
Internationalisation Collaboration Server. Jaldhar H. Vyas [5]asked
if it would be possible to set up a central website for coordinating
translation efforts within Debian. He suggested several tools which
were working like Ubuntu's proprietary Rosetta tool. Margarita
Manterola [6]added that
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at what
a applicant is doing. If done seriously sponsoring is almost as much work
as packaging a package on your own,
But only very few people take sponsoring seriously, despite some
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on
wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather
useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited
enough.
Probably it's a good
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
2.1 Multiple advocates
--
Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
two). This should get the number of people advocated with a Errr,
I met him, he seemed nice down. At the
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:57:48PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
As in recent DPL elections, the personality of James Troup was a pivotal
~~~ ~~~
I believe you misspelled demonization and distracting...
issue in this one.
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So far as I can tell, the decision to make the first message public or
semi-public has been a decision taken by the people who chose to start it,
not by the process, and changing the process isn't going to address that
problem (unless, I suppose, there's
Dear Marc and fellow Debian friends,
Thanks for this cogent and clear summary of the problem as you see it.
It reminds me a bit of the problem of scientific peer-review; for-pay
journals often ask people to donate their limitted time reviewing
other people's work. Although the journal profits,
29 matches
Mail list logo
