On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 02:34:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Karsten Merker:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >>
> 4. NM Committee review
> --
> The NMC has 7 days
Miles Fidelman writes:
> At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
> Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
> be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
> observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing
On 1/10/19 3:02 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:20:41PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think
> > > > about
> > >
Hello!
Karsten Merker:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
>>
4. NM Committee review
--
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the
matter in
private.
Hi!
Richard Hartmann:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> [...]
>> Anthony Towns:
> [...]
>
>>> Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to
>>> the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member
>>> committee will probably want to
On 1/10/19 12:00 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 19:20 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
On 1/9/19 5:39 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:08:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action,
>
> I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment.
>
> > 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> >
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
[...]
> Anthony Towns:
[...]
> > Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to
> > the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member
> > committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I don't intend to use devotee for that. I don't think it can
> currently handle such votes, nor do I want to spend time
> implementing that.
I have used CIVS[1] for various projects and for work. It's not very
polished, but usually works well.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote
> > > goes, I
> > > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it.
> >
> > I beg to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote goes,
> > I
> > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it.
>
> I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with
> using sqrt(people
12 matches
Mail list logo
