Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (23/10/2008):
> Having NMs in a keyring, maintained by keyring-maint, would probably
> solve this, and we could provide access to our porter machines when
> there is the need.
That would be terrific.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Joerg nominated teams, not persons.
> My "and the people involved" should be read as
> "and the number of teams involved".
I don't think "nominated" is the correct term here. Joerg did
not nominate the secretary for anything, as far a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:43:31PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> What about getting every maintainer's key in a keyring and LDAP? it would
> >> finally allow for a better management system to take place
> > The problem is that not all maintain
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> For example, there's nothing special about a DC.
> No upload rights, no vote rights, no debian.org logins.
Well, they won't get automatic shells on project machines, but I don't
see why they wouldn't get an account if whatever it is they are doing
re
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:55:55PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Given how rooted is the acronym DD in the Debian community, I doubt it
> > is a good idea to change it or even to get rid of it.
>
> True, but the proposal splits the current DD in two types, namely DDM
> and DNDM.
No, it does not sp
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:40:32PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> Basically, they need to pass the ID check, agree to the Social
> >> Contract/DFSG and have successfully answered a set of questions
> >> similar to the ones used in the current first P&P step, to keep doing
> >> the same thing the
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can we please wrap part of this thread up by saying that: most of
> us---i.e., the participants to this thread---would BE OK with passing
> this proposal *with GR* (after the usual needed discussion time),
> whereas most of us would NOT BE OK with passing this proposal *
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:12:04PM +, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:16:01 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > > > Debian Contributor
> > > > --
> > > > Debian Maintainer
> > > > -
> > > > Debian Member
> > > > -
> > > > Debian De
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:16:01 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > Debian Contributor
> > > --
> > > Debian Maintainer
> > > -
> > > Debian Member
> > > -
> > > Debian Developer
> > >
> > Now, regarding your proposal itself, I agree wit
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:27:03PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:59:09AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > - Debian Developing Member (DDM) = what's called DD in the proposal.
>
> Given how rooted is the acronym DD in the Debian community, I doubt it
> is a good idea to
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:14:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:33:28PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Developer Status
> >
> Hi all, thanks for this proposal.
I'd also like to thank Ganneff (and whoever contributed to the
concept) for their effort, an
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:29:53PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> > Debian Contributor
>> > --
>> Basically, they need to pass the ID check, agree to the Social
>> Contract/DFSG and have successfully answered a set of questions
>> similar to the ones used in th
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:12:01 -0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> > I have a problem with non-technical persons voting on technical
> > issues, or issues having technical implications for the developer
> > body. I have even more of a problem with non-technical persons leading
> > a technical project.
[.
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> 2008/10/23 Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11547 March 1977, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Debian Maintainer
>> -
>> They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
2008/10/23 Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> On 11547 March 1977, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Debian Maintainer
> -
> They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
> of (source) packages to up
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:47PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Can you comment on your motivations, please?
>
> Huh, I'd like to understand why all these people in Cc: have thought
> such a "policy" was so impor
2008/10/23 Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:41:13 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> Peter Palfrader wrote:
>>
>> > Also I question what good it would actually do.
>>
>> If you only keep human maintainers in LDAP (or teams turned into LDAP groups)
>> you will end up
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 11547 March 1977, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Debian Maintainer
-
They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
of (source) packages to upload can be edited by any member of the NM
co
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:41:13 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > Also I question what good it would actually do.
>
> If you only keep human maintainers in LDAP (or teams turned into LDAP groups)
> you will end up with all the information you to easily know who is wh
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> > Having NMs in a keyring, maintained by keyring-maint, would probably
>> > solve this, and we could provide access to our porter machines when
>> > there is the need.
>>
>> What about getting every maintainer's key in a
Felipe Sateler wrote:
> I do want translators, documentation writers, etc to be recognized for their
> work. I also want them to have the tools to do their work. The DMe thing would
^^^
That should be DC.
> only accomplish adding
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Having NMs in a keyring, maintained by keyring-maint, would probably
> > solve this, and we could provide access to our porter machines when
> > there is the need.
>
> What about getting every maintainer's key in a keyring and LDAP? it would
> fina
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> On 11547 March 1977, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> Debian Maintainer
>>> -
>>> They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
>>> of (source) packages to upload can be edited by any member of the NM
>>> committee[NMC], who will do a p
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11547 March 1977, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>> While, strictly speaking, this increases the barrier to get DM compared
>>> to the current implementation of DM, we do not think it is an
>>> unreasonable or too high level. Anyone who is able to get a package put
>>> together
I would humbly request for your help in terms of sponsership in my education at
university level.I'm called Asherry Magalla fromTanzania.Until now i'm
22 years old finishing my high school education in february 2009.I'm
located in Dar es salaam at Gerezani/Kariakoo in Railway quarters.I will be
[No mail copies, please]
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/10/08 at 12:05 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>> > On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> >
>> >> and keyring managers
>> >> would like to remain the authoritative source for "who is in Debian".
>> >
On 23/10/08 at 12:05 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >
> >> and keyring managers
> >> would like to remain the authoritative source for "who is in Debian".
> >
> > Indeed, that's a problem. What about changing the DM
Luk Claes wrote:
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>
>> What about getting every maintainer's key in a keyring and LDAP? it would
>> finally allow for a better management system to take place
>
> The problem is that not all maintainers have keys in the first place.
Which in theory is not good. Even pa
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>>
>>> For example, I think that a NM should be given login privileges
>>> because that's many times needed to solve bugs.
>> Theoretically being DD is not a prerequisite to getting shells on debian
>>
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>
>> For example, I think that a NM should be given login privileges
>> because that's many times needed to solve bugs.
>
> Theoretically being DD is not a prerequisite to getting shells on debian
> systems. Practically it is s
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +, Clint Adams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
us two for we) and then
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 16:01, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but the devil is in the details. In this case is precisely in
> the "etc." :-)
>
> For example, do you think we should have a "member" which can vote but
> can not upload? I think we should, and that's the main b
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:37:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I'm also surprised that voting rights come before global uploading
> rights. Shouldn't that be the other way round?
IMO they should be decoupled. It should be able to have the one
without the other and vice-versa (see the ASCII art
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:01:17PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> I, for one, would support or even propose a GR to overrule you
> (whoever "you" might be) as a delegate if you proceed with enforcing
> this proposal without getting an approval by a GR.
Can we please wrap part of this thread up b
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00079.html
[...]
> Why don't we just take each and every of those privileges and define
> criteria for how to obtain the privilege, and then simply give
> people privileges according to what they need, ra
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:12:01PM -0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Ideally, this would be defining two classes (yes, and then we can
> proceed to declare the war between classes, and take the winter
> palace, etc..) one that defines a full member, who can vote, be
> delegate, etc, and a contributor
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> We plan to integrate DM more closely into the NM process/system
> while keeping the spirit of easing entry into Debian for newcomers.
> At the same time we add a separate track for less-technical
> contributors.
I have to say that I don't like *at all* the way that yo
* Joerg Jaspert:
> Following our Constitution §8.1.2, DAM declares that Debian Members are
> to be treated as "Developers who do not maintain packages" wherever the
> term "Developer" is used in one of our documents.
This strongly smells like abuse of procedure. I know it's difficult to
implemen
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > But the more important part is IMO that the proposal *finally* respects
> > the non-packaging contributors (and there are many, I guess). For them
> > we can now have similar steps which in the end means DD rights without
> > the need
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:59:09AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> - Debian Developing Member (DDM) = what's called DD in the proposal.
Given how rooted is the acronym DD in the Debian community, I doubt it
is a good idea to change it or even to get rid of it.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD i
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> For example, I think that a NM should be given login privileges
> because that's many times needed to solve bugs.
Theoretically being DD is not a prerequisite to getting shells on debian
systems. Practically it is since we have no infrastructure to ma
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:55:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I hate in Ganneff proposal the fact that it just standardize the 6
> months delay to be a DD. It's acknowledging that we suck, and trying
> nothing to fix the problem. It's unacceptable to me.
Other projects are doing similar; e.g.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:33:19PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Joerg, this means that if we want to have a word to say about how
> the Debian project defines its members, we have to participate to
> this discussion *now*, or block it.
> This is a situation that will not help to get the best out
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:33:28PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Developer Status
>
Hi all, thanks for this proposal.
It is about something that we have discussed several times in the
past, and was already agreed as a point of Debian needing improvement:
how to upon contribution
First of all, I want to express my support for this idea.
I think it can be improved. Specially, I think that having so many
statuses is confusing. And I'd like the system to highlight the
relationship with Debian, instead of the actual rights. Ideally, this
would be defining two classes (yes, and
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>> and keyring managers
>> would like to remain the authoritative source for "who is in Debian".
>
> Indeed, that's a problem. What about changing the DM process so that
> keyring managers are responsible for this keyring
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Reading the proposal and the people involved, I think the
proposal is to complex and bureaucratic and it doesn't
fit to the Debian structure.
If you are not looking at the proposal on its merits, but you
are bas
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > Developer Status
> >
>
> And I should probably have written this inside the mail itself, but the
> most obvious things are those you forget.
>
> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so t
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +, Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
>> > us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
>> > K
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:45:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is not an evil, destroy Debian effort.
Thanks Manoj, very well written.
I totally agree.
For sure the tone _could_ have been made more clear that since the
beginning, but hey, we should learn how to read past each other
ton
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > >> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
> > >> us
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> >> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:09:23PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This is where you got this wrong. The responsibility is to serve
>> the project, and the foundations on which the project is built, to the
>> best of our ability. Me under
On jeu, oct 23, 2008 at 02:55:46 +, cobaco wrote:
> > The more steps you add, the sooner people will stop. IOW less and less
> > people will become full DDs, and instead of bringing new blood to the
> > project, you bring new blood to the "lesser" contributors and deplete
> > the core contribut
On Thursday 2008-10-23, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:18:01PM +, cobaco wrote:
> > IIRC the last time this came up people could name 1 or 2 non-packagers
> > who had ever bothered with NM
> >
> > -> while it is theoretically possible for non-packagers to go through
> > NM,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:09:23PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, however, you have this backwards. The release team
> > members (and this goes for any other core team as well) have privileges
> > which are withheld from the other dev
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
> In my opinion, however, you have this backwards. The release team
> members (and this goes for any other core team as well) have privileges
> which are withheld from the other developers for whatever reason,
> and they have been granted such privileges p
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Reading the proposal and the people involved, I think the
> proposal is to complex and bureaucratic and it doesn't
> fit to the Debian structure.
If you are not looking at the proposal on its merits, but you
are basing your decisions o t
On Wed, Oct 22 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
>> us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
>> Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
>
> I am d
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:28:44PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
> >> us two for we) and then discussed wit
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
>> us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
>> Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
>
> Co
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +, Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
>> > us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
>> >
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:55:19PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> and offering an apology acceptable to the release team. Debian has, in my
> opinion, the obligation towards the people doing one of the hardest tasks
> Debian has to offer (look at the number of people it has worn out) to not
> t
On 2008-10-23 12:11:32.00 Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The NEW queue hasn't been processed for two months if we except a
few
fast-tracked packages, and the number of packages it contains has
increased a lot.
Some rumors said it is due to the approaching release of Lenny, but
o
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> But the more important part is IMO that the proposal *finally* respects
> the non-packaging contributors (and there are many, I guess). For them
> we can now have similar steps which in the end means DD rights without
> the need of
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:18:01PM +, cobaco wrote:
> IIRC the last time this came up people could name 1 or 2 non-packagers who
> had ever bothered with NM
>
> -> while it is theoretically possible for non-packagers to go through NM,
> quite obviously it's currently not worth the pain in th
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-23 09:59:09 CEST]:
> > First of all, a suggestion from me. I would like to change names a bit,
> > so there are names for some groups as well. Here's my proposal:
>
> This is misleading b
On Thursday 2008-10-23, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Now about the new status you are proposing, my general feeling is:
> more bureaucracy \o/ What you are proposing is way too complicated for
> the outside world to understand.
It's less bureaucracy for a non-packaging contributor:
right now if a transl
On Thu Oct 23 10:25, martin f krafft wrote:
> Why don't we just take each and every of those privileges and define
> criteria for how to obtain the privilege, and then simply give
> people privileges according to what they need, rather than having
> a defined set of rigid classes? Obviously, one co
Hi,
The NEW queue hasn't been processed for two months if we except a few
fast-tracked packages, and the number of packages it contains has
increased a lot.
Some rumors said it is due to the approaching release of Lenny, but on
the other hand some packages in NEW are targeted to experimental, wh
* Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-23 09:59:09 CEST]:
> First of all, a suggestion from me. I would like to change names a bit,
> so there are names for some groups as well. Here's my proposal:
>
> - Debian Developing Contributor (DDC) = what's currently called DM
> - Debian Non-Developin
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm pretty unhappy with the very non-Debian way you have when it comes
to making decisions and announcing them.
> If you are an existing Debian Developer or Debian Maintainer, don't be
> afraid, we are not going to take anything away from you.
And al
IANADD.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:37:23AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I'd put it even more bluntly. The current problem is that NM is too
> slow, too sluggish, too boring. Being a DD requires a motivation that I
> wouldn't even dare to ask from the best employees in my company, and god
> know
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:10:29PM +, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > Developer Status
> >
>
> And I should probably have written this inside the mail itself, but the
> most obvious things are those you forget.
>
> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so t
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:48:51AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 10:37 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > So when the
> > *constitution* gives him the right to do what he just did (yeah, sadly
> > he can and we have to be 2:1 to overrule that yeah), it's completely
>
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 10:37 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> So when the
> *constitution* gives him the right to do what he just did (yeah, sadly
> he can and we have to be 2:1 to overrule that yeah), it's completely
> against the nature of Debian, and the spirit of the constitution.
Only o
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:47:10AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 08:59 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > Debian Contributor
> > > --
> > > Debian Maintainer
> > > -
> > > Debian Member
> > > -
> > > Debian Developer
> > >
Le Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> - a new policy to get implemented some time soon, with whatever
>sensible changes might come out of this thread
Joerg, this means that if we want to have a word to say about how the
Debian project defines its members, we h
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 10:20 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> It is
> - a start of the discussion, using d-d-a on purpose to reach
>everyone in something that more or less touches all of us, and
> - a new policy to get implemented some time soon, with whatever
>sensible changes might
also sprach Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.22.2333 +0200]:
> Now let us describe the way the account status is meant to be handled
> in future.
Finally!
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00079.html
It's the latest message I could find. I am sure I have been harping
on
>> while keeping the spirit of easing entry into Debian for newcomers.
>> At the same time we add a separate track for less-technical
>> contributors.
> Is it a start of a discussion? A new policy?
Both. :)
It is
- a start of the discussion, using d-d-a on purpose to reach
everyone in s
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Developer Status
This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
Reading the proposal and the people involved, I think the
propo
First of all, a suggestion from me. I would like to change names a bit,
so there are names for some groups as well. Here's my proposal:
- Debian Developing Contributor (DDC) = what's currently called DM
- Debian Non-Developing Contributor (DNDC) = what's called DC in the
proposal.
- Debian Con
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:59:54AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Debian is about developing a free operating system, but there's more
> > in an operating system than just software and packages. If we want
> > translators, documentation writers, artists, free software advocates,
> > et al. to g
On Wed Oct 22 23:33, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Developer Status
>
I fully support this proposal (and have in fact suggested similar things
in the past). I definitely think that a process which involves a more
gradual granting of privileges and more fine-grained access control is
good
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 08:59 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > Debian Contributor
> > --
> > Debian Maintainer
> > -
> > Debian Member
> > -
> > Debian Developer
> >
>
> I really liked the fact that it was possible to explain Debia
On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
> > us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
> > Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
>
On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Developer Status
>
Like others, I'm uncomfortable with the way this is being announced.
Also, I really want to thank you for starting this discussion now.
Having been personally involved in trying to delay the release, I
apprecia
88 matches
Mail list logo
