On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:42:05 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You are mistaken. I should have included more of the quote, where you
> definately talk about speed. Here is the entire paragraph:
> Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good
> predictor for perfor
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> sai
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see any
Ian Jackson wrote:
> That's a nice idea but if a problem with the TC is that the decisions
> are too poor, reducing the number of people who review those decisions
> seems like a bad idea.
One thing that I'm feeling is that if a technical decision comes down to
a vote by a committe, there's often
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like this should be
> made by polling the suers (not a vote -- polling them for opinions
> _and_ reasons.
>
> The TC would have been equally wrong body to make this decisio
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
> > were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
> > problem with TC decisions being ignored.
>
> The TC is the decision-maker o
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> > propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> > conclu
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which people
> were perfor
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:13:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> > limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
> > mig
Hi,
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 11:09, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > [wordpress]
> > > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > > as well, I no longer care.
> > Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's
> > keep it" -> I don't understand.
> Maybe it's
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> [wordpress]
> > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > as well, I no longer care.
>
> Hu?
>
> Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
> it"
[ Please Cc me on replies, if any, I am not on -vote. ]
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi Manoj, I haven't yet got the ack for my vote but I guess I know the
> > reason. Do you use the pristine Debian keyring? If so, could you
> > please either refresh all
Hi,
On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[wordpress]
> FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> as well, I no longer care.
Hu?
Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
it" -> I don't understand.
regards,
H
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
> might have on ones performance. As examples I think that it would be
> reasona
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:28:53 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the
>> > same committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately,
>> > for your own sake, certainly not mine...
>>
>> Err, is that some kind of a
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> > where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> > particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> > technica
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, MartÃn Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > better job of them
17 matches
Mail list logo
