Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
to bypass the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
Well, as per constitution 2.1.1 a GR cannot force any project member
or delegate to do something, so if the GR means what
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:27:24AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
any time something is added to non-free? I suspect the ftpmasters will
not be enthusiastic about complying with a GR that requires a mechanism
to bypass
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
How about dropping the GR and continuing with the current process,
where anybody can file a RC bug
[me]
Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
any time something is added to non-free?
[Robert Millan]
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:54:35PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 27 October 2008 20:36, Robert Millan wrote:
- We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
out - for this reason, we will
- treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
How about dropping the GR and
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[me]
Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
any time something is added to non-free?
[Robert Millan]
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:01:51PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
Hi Robert,
Robert Millan wrote:
I don't think NEW is the problem here. The question, from my POV, is that
as developer I don't feel I am empowered to move a package to non-free
without permission from the maintainers, even if it is obviously infringing
on the Social Contract.
For all but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Palfrader wrote:
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus
Although I take exception to some of the name calling that has been
done against Charles and Lucas, I am fine with switching to this
alternative proposal as its ultimate intend is identical: to safeguard
that no changes are made to something as fundamental to the project
as its membership
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not
provided by
| the
Le Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
I hereby second the proposal quoted below and have no objection to
Charles Plessy's earlier proposal being dropped (or retracted)
Thanks Frans for the explanation, and thanks again to Peter who showed us a
way to an exit of the
16 matches
Mail list logo
