On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
> something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
> easier to change things before they start.
At some point you have to actually start however
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:39:52PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Oh my, you must really fear losing this vote, eh?
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
Cheers,
aj
s
On 11095 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
>> so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...
> Okay, I've been avoiding this issue, bu
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > The top
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> * how many are still active ?
> * how many are actually DD that never reuploaded thoses packages with
> their @d.o address ?
> * how many are actually DD that do not use their @d.o address ?
> * how many are not in NM ?
> * how many would be in NM if NM wasn't
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:56:31 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Debian should be about users and working together, the more I see
> arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
> uncoordinated work.
Hmm. Debian is actually about creating the best
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
>> 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
>>striving to have fewer classes.
>
> Does it really? as pointed out earlier in threads about this we have 900+
> non-DD maintainers. so it se
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
> > >
> > > 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> > >
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
> >
> > 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> > 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
>
> I'd better complain then.
>
> 1
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're voting for the proposal on the basis that all it creates is a
> governance structure and everything else will be at the discretion of the
> people involved, the proposal should *say* that rather than laying out a
> bunch of initial policy. It ins
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
>
> 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
I'd better complain then.
1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we s
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
>> tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
>> take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
> tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
> take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate
> that. It should be a natural next step
I find most of this mail very unfortunate, but since I'm one of the people
who doesn't like the current proposal, I wanted to call out this point:
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ] 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
> ] -
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
> so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...
Okay, I've been avoiding this issue, but the above's an outright lie,
and since DAM and
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:05:51AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
> > have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
> > acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
> > possibly get integrated in
Hi,
On Sunday 29 July 2007 15:00, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I don't disagree to this statement. But it seems to me that the way
> Joerg proposed fits way better within this goal than the current
> proposal. (Because it is way more natural to just make it part of the NM
> process.)
I read Joergs mail
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 14:39]:
> And yes, sure, one can contribute very well to Debian Edu with just commit
> rights. (Currently one can even upload to our archive without being a DD, we
> have a seperate keyring (and rules how to get in there) - but for lenny we
> want to n
Hi,
On Saturday 28 July 2007 13:20, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
> > > > > Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload th
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:00:50PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
> > uncoordinated work. Maybe we should care more about people that are nice
> > to users rather about introverted guy
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
>> about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
> > uncoordinated work. Maybe we should care more about people that are nice
> > to users rather about introverted guys that do not care about the rest
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
> uncoordinated work. Maybe we should care more about people that are nice
> to users rather about introverted guys that do not care about the rest
> of the world, shouldn't we ?
I fin
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:37:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:56:39PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > And so on. The thread you
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:05:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Sure, "Don't quit Debian then" is a valid response (though I'm perhaps
> > old-fashioned in terms of thinking that as a full member of an
> > organisation I hav
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
> Agreed it makes sense to distribute the load on more shoulders. It doesn't
> make sense to do it on non .d.o machines and it doesn't make sense to have
> two wanna-build instances.
I disagree to that. For example, it is far easier to try thin
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
> > > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
> >
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:18]:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
> > > architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
> > > by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is AW
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
> > architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
> > by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is AWOL/unresponsive/whatever. Unlike
>
> FWIW, DSA has about noth
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 13:27]:
> > They will. After they have passed NM to which they are motivated.
>
> Good. So, what is the use of DMs then? This fits way better with Joergs
> proposal of adding partial upload rights as a step i
30 matches
Mail list logo
