On Wednesday 16 March 2005 01:49, David Schmitt wrote:
> Hello, world!
>
> After making a final run through through the debian-vote archives I now
> hope to have faithfully captured 2005s DPL candidates Q&A on
>
> http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/
Ugh, I noticed that the campaigning period obvi
On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:20 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> I have been reminded that an SPI question was asked around line 205
> of http://people.debian.org/~mjr/debian_dpl_debate.html
I finally got around to reading it. Personally I think Jonathan is nuts, with
chocolate and ice cream! I love him though
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yes, it would be good to have more replies on
> > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/spi-management.html
> Agreed.
I have been reminded that an SPI question was asked around line 205
of http://people.d
Hi folks,
The platforms for the candidates for the project leader are
available as links on the page http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_001
or, http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/platforms/. The rebuttals are
also in place.
The following is a ***DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT*** ballot for
Hi,
Thanks to stellar efforts on the part of Helen Faulkner and
Martin Krafft, the Debian project leader debates went off very
well. I would like to thank them, and others who helped, on behalf of
the project.
A transcript of the debate can be found at
http://www.debian.org/v
Hello,
Custom Debian Distributions open a new way of understanding Debian:
we are an operating system, but we have the opportunity to become an
exceptional system for building operating systems, without loosing
the level of cooperation among them and between them and Debian[1].
Debian-Edu is a rea
On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quite so. The president is not the officer charged with handling monies,
> but a board-level overseer. http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/spi-bylaws
Agreed. It all comes down to team attitude. The problem (and this can be
typical) is that obsessing
Previously Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> OK, I can see this too. Let's CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's probably
> related to the recent move to another machine.
I asked the SPI nm folks (which includes you Martin) to verify the
members.spi-inc.org setup after moving it to chic. Apparently nobody
has done
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to revisit the entire discussion here but if you read the
> by-laws
> you will see that they specifically empower the President to "see that all
> books, reports and certificates as required by law are properly kept or
> filed". The only
On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:30 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> That's a nature of both summary and diplomacy. He didn't mention
> that you were organisationally asleep and reacted when you woke up
> by trying to exceed your powers. I suspect John wants to avoid any
> unnecessary offence to current, future or p
also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.17.1711 +0100]:
> Sure, they don't -- voting's voluntary.
It's not if you are not allowed to.
> They do need to be able to upload packages, or put stuff up on
> people.debian.org, or do other things on our servers, though.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-proje
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 16:44]:
> > Why does it not work?
> http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign-in with a message
> that "The problem is session management failed or timed out."
> That may or may not be related to the expired SSL certificate.
>
> Should I still report
Anthony Towns writes:
> That's only a reasonable thing to do if you can also offer an
> assurance like "Your explanations will be listened to with respect,
> and you won't need to read thousand-message threads attacking your
> commitment to the values of the project over your decisions."
Package
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 12:20]:
> > I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
> > (which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks).
> Why does it not work?
http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign-in wit
Helen Faulkner wrote:
What use do developers have for the right to vote? Surely if you can
say that someone spending hours translating stuff for Debian doesn't
need to vote you can just as easily say that someone spending hours
maintaining packages doesn't need to vote either.
Sure, they don't
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 12:20]:
> I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
> (which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks).
Why does it not work?
Did you try going to
http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private, putting your
email address in
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This summary leaves out some key elements.
That's a nature of both summary and diplomacy. He didn't mention
that you were organisationally asleep and reacted when you woke up
by trying to exceed your powers. I suspect John wants to avoid any
unnecessary
Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...] It took 'til April for people
> not paying attention to SPI to notice the change [3],
I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
(which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks). Who do
you mean by "people not paying attention to SPI"?
> [...
* Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 12:41]:
> You can already be a "documentation DD" -- that is, apply for NM and
> go through T&S being asked to prove your ability to write
> documentation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever done
> that, though;
There are some (few,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:34:17PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I think it would be fairly reasonable to let translators, documenters,
> and other people who do good for work Debian, become Debian developers,
> but only have those who pass a "packaging skills exam" (like T&S is
> mostly now) have
to, 2005-03-17 kello 10:00 +, Helen Faulkner kirjoitti:
> What use do developers have for the right to vote? Surely if you can
> say that someone spending hours translating stuff for Debian doesn't
> need to vote you can just as easily say that someone spending hours
> maintaining packages
aj wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Do we actually need a DPL? Would we be noticeably worse off without a DPL?
>
>ObVious: We'd be violating the constitution not to have one; if we
>refuse to elect one, we'll just have Manoj and Ian act as the DPL until
>we work out what we want.
Thanks; I wasn'
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are
>> *not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every
>> team "you must explain and defend your decisions".
>
> That's only a reasonable thing to do if you
Anthony Towns wrote:
The perspective I take instead is one of making it easier for people who
have a use for developer status to get it. If translators, artists, and
lawyers don't have any use for accounts, uploading priveleges and
whatever else, then that's fine, IMO -- I don't think all the po
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Anthony Towns wrote:
>>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
How about the creation of a checklist for meeting organisation and
reporting? Something along the lines of:
5) Does our write-up start with the problems we wish to address and
then logica
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Do we get to ask that their conclusions be made and explained and
defended publicly? That's all I want. It happened nicely with
respect to the Vancouver meeting. Lots of people went ballistic for
what seem to me to be insane reasons. The Vancouver meeting is an
exampl
Frank Küster wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
How about the creation of a checklist for meeting organisation and
reporting? Something along the lines of:
5) Does our write-up start with the problems we wish to address and
then logically progress from there to the conclusions we r
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'd like to split that into two questions: are we going to spend time
> discussing their conclusions, and are we going to spend time flaming
> over their conclusions? I certainly think we should discuss them,
> especially if there are disagreements or details that need wor
28 matches
Mail list logo
