-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> ---
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remov
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's also the argument that the sooner we release Lenny with the
> improvements that *have* been made, the sooner the people using stable
> will be able to move away from whatever non-free stuff they've been
> stuck with in Etch.
I think th
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
>> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these inclu
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:19:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>The road we're continuing down is one of incremental *improvement* of
>Debian's compliance with the current Social Contract. We waived the
>requirement for DFSG-compliant documentation for sarge, and resolved that
>for etch; we wai
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:23:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> > us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> > - 100% freeness
> > - cater best to t
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> OTOH, I do understand the desire to put such (diminishing) exceptions
> to a referendum instead of leaving them implicit, and am happy to vote
> for a GR that makes clear to our users the state of affairs in lenny.
Well said. I think we should
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
>> ,[ Option 8 ]
>> |1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>> | community (Social Contract #4);
>> |
>> |2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>> | non-free bits in kerne
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:32:51PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> It's all a matter of defining what your priorities are, which brings
> us back to the Social Contract, which says that these include:
> - 100% freeness
> - cater best to the interests of our users
> Note that it does not say:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
>---
>The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
>applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
Le Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:27:40PM +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > In accordance to the paragraph 4.2.2 of the constition, this
> > suspension takes immediately effect until a procedural vote decides if
> > the supsension is lifted until the vote of this general resolut
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:41:53AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> > moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> > the Release Team for "stable")
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:39:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> > for resolving DFSG violations:
>
> I would generally second this, but I wish w
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Option 7 ]
> |1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> |2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> |
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
> list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
> that list?
The last part of the sentence
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:22:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
>
> By who? There is no standard.
I don't think we need a standard to define thing
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:43, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to add that I'm not opposed to changes in our membership
> policy. But those changes could fundamentally change our project, and I
> believe that it's important that there's a lot of discussion about it,
There hav
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
By who? There is no standard.
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
As you know, there are developers with
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> ---
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bit
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I think that I would like to see an option to just release Lenny
with an exception on the ballot, without any changes to the foundation
I would second this proposal for basically the same reasons as Lucas, but
there is one sentence I think needs to be improved.
Charles Plessy wrote:
> In accordance to the paragraph 4.2.2 of the constition, this
> suspension takes immediately effect until a procedural vote decides if
> the s
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 18:40 +0200, Thomas Viehmann a écrit :
> ---
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time in that it adds
>
> Doubly so.
AOL.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> ---
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 pa
Hi,
I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
---
The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority.
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> the Release Team for "stable").
I don't understand this part. As a developer, how do I move a
pac
On 24/10/08 at 23:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Given the importan
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I would generally second this, but I wish we would separate the two
issues: first establish whether and how we want to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:49:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> takes immediately effect until a procedural vote decides if the supsension
Typo ^
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threa
I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
for resolving DFSG violations:
Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~
The developers resolve that:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none
Le Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:15:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > The Debian Project, by the way of a general resolution of its developpers,
> > decides:
> >
> > - The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, maybe you want. This would make it impossible to change the
> membership procedures without an GR.
I don't think so. I think that would require (temporarily) amending
the constitution, as it would (temporarily) remove the authority
defined there.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:15:43PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The Debian Project, by the way of a general resolution of its developpers,
> decides:
>
> - The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are suspended.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
Joerg Jaspert answered to my questions and some others on his blog, but the
informations that I think we need are still not provided.
- It is not known whether the Secretary, the Project leader and his delegates
for the system administr
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Your lack of knowledge of Debian processes sucks (that means: you
> > annoy us (at least me) with your stance and the fanatic way you defend it
> > in public, pleas
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:43:47AM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>- "Aníbal Monsalve Salazar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The Sun employee is the Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems,
>>Simon Phipps.
>
>I'll be at Apachecon in two weeks and Simon Phipps is scheduled to be
>there. I'l
35 matches
Mail list logo
