Re: infrastructure team procedures (third edit)

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:10:52AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Hi, > > Take three, minor copyedit, plus the rule explicitly handling all-latent > teams. Thanks for the work on this effort! A. > * Infrastructure teams have an ongoing responsibility to maintain a level > of service that is gene

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-10-2007 11:22, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) > wrote: >> If, for instance, we need to change people and we >> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or >> to

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > If, for instance, we need to change people and we > are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or > to interfere and ask for the change, then I think we need > a better approach. How exactly can

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-10-2007 06:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: >>> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else >>> deciding i

infrastructure team procedures (third edit)

Hi, Take three, minor copyedit, plus the rule explicitly handling all-latent teams. - This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html Proposed gener

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: >> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else >> deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own membership would >> go against all recorded history (A