Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote:
The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics.
As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me,
that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Clint Adams wrote:
If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly
a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to
remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of
people who can revert this, and roughly a
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something
unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to
get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of
telling one's employer no? If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hereby propose each of the three draft General Resolutions below.
(Each resolution text is between cut marks like these: -8- -8-).
I would like to request that:
* The Project Leader reduces the minimum discussion period
and the voting period to
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Sam Hocevar wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Duck
Tank
I do not like how this not objecting might be interpreted as
support. I want
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
-8-
1. The Developers note the existence and activities
of the dunc-tanc project.
2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
address dunc-tank in a General
* Martin Schulze:
It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly
paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to.
But this is hardly a new thing. The difference is that this time,
there is a debate. Debian developers are currently not required to
disclose
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 10:20:51AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
* The Project Leader reduces the minimum discussion period
and the voting period to one week each;
I strongly object.
I would like that we get a clarification over the non-free firmware for etch
vote, before you go lose yourself
* Steve Langasek:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
just let me rephrase it then.
1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin,
nor Andi nor I, nor any of the
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 10:20:51AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
* The Project Leader reduces the minimum discussion period
and the voting period to one week each;
*blink*
I didn't realise I could change the voting period. Interestingly, only the
ability to change the discussion period is
Geert Stappers wrote:
[ ] Just document how to (re)build with non free drivers.
This is a good idea, of course. Is building a custom d-i image
described anywhere? I think it *is*, because I seem to remember this
being used for some custom distros, but I can't find the document right now.
This one time, at band camp, Ian Jackson said:
6. The Project requests that the Release Managers should not accept
any funding for their core Debian activities without the consent of
the Project.
What makes you think that the livelihood of an individual developer is
any of your
Hi,
There seems to be a discrepancy between the way I have been
interpreting the constitution, and how the original author meant it
to be interpreted. I have thought about this now for a few days, and
I now believe that the filibustering issues might not be as grave as
I thought.
Hi,
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us.
As there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this
GRs is
Loïc Minier wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
-8-
1. The Developers note the existence and activities
of the dunc-tanc project.
2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole to
address
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
There's some difference between not liking aj and thinking aj is
hurting the project to the point he should be recalled.
In fact,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For the record, this is not the full text of
Martin Schulze wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is
[1/3]
Russ Allbery wrote at some point:
including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether
I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from
my employer.
Agreed.
The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do
something unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone
else trying to get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the
increased
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
Third resolution `We do not want to state an opinion':
-8-
1. The Developers note the existence and activities
of the dunc-tanc project.
2. We do not believe it appropriate for the Project as a whole
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Technically it's not a contradiction: DDs can vote to behave
inappropriately. :-) Still, it's poor wording. I suggest the following
amendment to Ian:
Replace clause 2 of third resolution with:
2. The Project as a whole chooses not to express any
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
against some developers' opinions?
If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's
opinion, then,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the
proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of
power. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the secretary
to impose such additional obstacles to getting a GR through.
I
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
resolution
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution.
*There* lies the crux of the disagreement.
(If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material,
or
Raul Miller wrote:
On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange,
Oooh, lengthy. Just email the damn sponsors and ask
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Geert Stappers wrote:
[ ] Just document how to (re)build with non free drivers.
This is a good idea, of course. Is building a custom d-i image
described anywhere? I think it *is*, because I seem to remember this
being used for some custom distros, but I
Debian Project Secretaru wrote:
Hi,
I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
before us.
Thanks for going through this. I know you had to as secretary, but it
must have sucked.
--
Nathanael
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
snip
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
snip
(someone, I'm not sure who, wrote:)
Re-adding them at this stage
1) is against the current social contract
Yes, but then so is
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
means to remove this particular subset of non-free
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:08:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Today I sent an email asking upstream to remove dgrs based on its
uselessness; we'll see what happens.
Thanks. We should consider removing it, too then.
Best regards
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Hi,
As I currently understand it, the position statement GR
regarding the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of
seconds; and received enough seconds on the 21st of September.
This is an independent proposal.
The attached file shows my current
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean
having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in our
installer, and releasing etch according to schedule. Did you mean for 4 to
say
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 12:39:38PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
If it is the consensus of the project that sourceless firmware doesn't
belong in main, this is a conscious regression in DFSG-compliance relative
to sarge. I don't think that's acceptable. We obviously do have the
means to remove this
Le dim 24 septembre 2006 22:07, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Hi,
As I currently understand it, the position statement GR
regarding the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of
seconds; and received enough seconds on the 21st of September.
This is an independent
also sprach Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.24.2207 +0200]:
J)
From: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:56:38 +0200
Signature made by expired key 220BC883330C4A75 Martin F. Krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My key has been
Le lun 25 septembre 2006 01:40, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
Following informal opposition during internal discussions, Anthony
Towns and al, have started soliciting donations for this purpose, in
an initiative called `dunc-tank'.
s/and al/et al./
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
For example, the firmware proposals are separate proposals
(Josselin Mouette's started as an amendment to a now withdrawn
proposal, Frederik Schueler's was a separate to start with, Don
Armstrong's seems to be a separate GR, since it does not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1)
martin == martin f krafft martin writes:
martin What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch,
martin please ffs.
Seconded.
--
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 02:17:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about
this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about
employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the
rest of
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it
would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the
firmware problem before exceptions are granted, but I don't have any
objections to it being on the same ballot as the
46 matches
Mail list logo
