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 cris
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
> |
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 procedure
-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 thu
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
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 option/
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 option/
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 rough
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 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 b
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 a
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
[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?
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 aga
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 bypa
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 wh
16 matches
Mail list logo
