Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I suggest assigning each open issue to a CTTE member in turn who acts
> > as the chair for that issue (with skipping if the member should recuse
> > themselves because they are directly inv
Hi,
(just thinking loud as an bystander..)
On Tuesday 11 March 2008 18:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This, however, I find a really interesting argument. I'm not sure it
> would actually work, but using the tech-ctte as a final arbitrator of
> Policy decisions and actually using that appeal on a reg
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 20:03:57 -0400, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> OK, the rest of your mail sounds somewhat reasonable, to an outsider who
> has no experience whatsoever with TC, but ... given that the TC often
> deals with contentious issues, and there is no obvious "right" or
> "wrong", how would y
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:54:50 +, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Or to put it another way, the problem isn't lack of new blood, it is
> lack of involvement. We should be removing TC members who are
> inactive or often wrong.
^^^
OK, the rest of your mail s
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> That would mean expanding the size of the tech-ctte rather than rotating
> its membership, correct?
Yes.
Although we don't have a working removal mechanism either, and that
definitely needs to be fixed.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> So, I could start doing this right now if you'd like. Manoj and I have a
> handful of Policy bugs that we've tagged dubious and that I was planning
> on closing at some point. I could just go close them all and refer people
> to the te
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
>> Have you raised this idea with the tech-ctte? What do the other
>> members think of having review of Policy change proposals be part of
>> the tech-ctte job? How would the mechanics of this w
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
>> (2) here is again a question of follow-through, and I don't see how
>> your proposal addresses that. The problem again is that someone has to
>> do work, and you can't, in general, find people
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
> > stagnate again in future.
>
> Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
> directly?
>
> I sug
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and
> bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org
> to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright statements.
> In particular, delegation seems necessary to avoid bureaucratic
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian is growing bigger everyday. I would like to know if you think
> that it should adapt to its new size, and if yes, how can you help this
> process as a DPL.
Debian has steadily grown in the past few years, at least in respect to
the number of pack
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Although I am not yet a DD, as it can happen anytime before or after the
> elections, I would like to ask a question to the candidates.
>
> Debian is growing bigger everyday. I would like to know if you think
> that it should adapt to its new size, and if yes, how can you he
Dear candidates,
At the end of 2005, the Debian Project passed a General Resolution [0]
to declassify posts made to the debian-private mailing list. The GR
specified that posts that are at least three years old will be
considered for publishing. It also specified that the DPL will appoint a
team t
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> This, however, I find a really interesting argument. I'm not sure it
> would actually work, but using the tech-ctte as a final arbitrator of
> Policy decisions and actually using that appeal on a regular basis is
> something that Manoj
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> (2) here is again a question of follow-through, and I don't see how your
> proposal addresses that. The problem again is that someone has to do
> work, and you can't, in general, find people to do work by doing
> governance shuffling.
Anthony Towns writes ("Technical committee resolution"):
> I've been thinking for a while [0] it'd be good to do a real revamp of
> the tech ctte. It's been pretty dysfunctional since forever, there's
> not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since it's
> almost entirely self-ap
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm not sure that Ian deciding that he doesn't think the tech-ctte is
>> functional or fast enough and hence isn't going to even give it an
>> opportunity to be functional is particularly p
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> It seems to me that, for this issue to be solved, we first need a
> clear consensus on debian-www@ about:
> - the plan we are going to follow
I believe we need legal advice on the validity of the various plans
before there will be a clear consensus
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > and I really haven't seen much from Sam during his term.
>
> For example, there's been: [6 dda posts and a blog category]
> which is pretty comparable to either my own Steve's communicat
(For clarification: writing with Raphael Hertzog's DPL team hat on)
On 11/03/08 at 03:07 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and
> bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org
> to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright s
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:35AM +, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Can we imagine a more componentised Debian distribution, in which it
> would be the common responsability of the packagers and the service
> managers to opt in or opt out the use of each services by Debian
> packages (or preferably g
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
> > stagnate again in future.
> Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
> directly?
Stagnation's
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
> stagnate again in future.
Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
directly?
I suggest assigning each open issue to a CTTE member in turn who acts
as the chair f
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You don't need to read my mind, you can read Ian's recent post on the
> > topic, eg:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2008/03/msg0.html
> I'm not sure that Ian deciding that
24 matches
Mail list logo
