On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
This is not true.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
Robert,
I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.
As for trying to bully people about consitution and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically
because Bdale's actions go far
http://www.g2usadoscertificados.pt/quiz/?referer=9eb486bfdc8b774a15e289d574e26e54
Ganha -iphone 3g-247 unidades disponiveis-Asus Eee-307 unidades
disponiveis-Gps acer-134 unidades disponiveis Quanto mais rapido se registar
mais rapido ganha! Para ganhar iphone: Convide 90 amigos.Para ganhar
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
Anthony Towns recently announced his decision to step down from
the Debian Technical Committee:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/01/msg6.html
I thank him on behalf of the rest of the committee and the
project
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 18:50 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
If I understand things right, you can add new members until
the number reaches 6 and can then proposed new members to the
DPL.
Since my invitations to the new members were issued after unanimous
agreement by the existing members of the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 06:50:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
It gives me great pleasure to welcome Russ Allbery and Don
Armstrong as the newest members of the Technical Committee.
If I understand things right, you can add new
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [090112 18:39]:
And Steve organised the vote to add Russ (which got approved),
and propose Don to the DPL.
Andreas said that with 3 of the 5 votes for proposing Don the vote
is over. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL
still needs to
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
and sanctioned. Not
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
you or anybody.
I don't
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
to the questions he's raised in this thread.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
going to be adopted at present.
There's nothing to be adopted. The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That
decision was not overridden. Hence, the release
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
government as an
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level
of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the
non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
I disagree completely.
The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (12/01/2009):
And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
long as necessary.
We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:05:09PM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
Another point is that most people are probably going to be pretty busy
with holiday stuff over the last couple of weeks (I'm leaving for a
two-week vacation myself tomorrow), so we'll have to get back to
implementation details
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be
Hi
It's not usual in me to give up on something when I'm completely certain
that I'm right. I hope you appreciate that I'm doing a great personal
sacrifice here.
Ean said:
Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds
and makes sane discourse impossible.
I've
34 matches
Mail list logo
