Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> How is the state of -private those days ? When I unsubscribed, it was
>> still mixing informations that are really private, like "Alice takes
>> holidays in Honolulu", some that may be private by accide
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:35:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> >
> > -private is notified so DDs are aware.
>
> How is the state of -private those days ? When I unsubscribed, it was still
> mixing informations that are really
Le Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:35:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> -private is notified so DDs are aware.
How is the state of -private those days ? When I unsubscribed, it was still
mixing informations that are really private, like "Alice takes holidays in
Honolulu", some that may be private
Don -- my apologies for not responding to this earlier; somehow I missed this
message, and figured out I had missed it via reading Moray's resonse to it.
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 18:35:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This message appears to be more appropriate for -project,
> non-candidate response
On 2013-03-28 16:35, Don Armstrong wrote:
ow...@bugs.debian.org is an appropriate place to report abusive
behavior by anyone (maintainers, users, etc) on the BTS.
But how broad a definition of abusive behaviour are you taking here?
I would have thought of contacting ow...@bugs.debian.org in re
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> (I still hadn't replied to that question -- I'll do that by following-up
> on Moray's reply since I agree with most of it)
...and I'll take the easiest route, and follow up on Lucas' mail, since
I mostly agree with both of them. Sorry!
> On 12/03/13 at 17:11 +0300, Mora
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Gergely Nagy dijo [Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 01:32:32PM +0100]:
>> Debian is also not impressively different, so to say. We have a distinct
>> culture, we have great technical solutions, but those are hardly enough
>> to impress someone who just casually looks. We need to reach o
This message appears to be more appropriate for -project,
non-candidate responses, please follow up there.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Chris Knadle wrote:
> As a bug reporter dealing with a misbehaving maintainer, this is
> what I would want:
>
> 1. A clear place to report the misbehavior
ow...@bugs
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:59:11PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Do we need to scientifically prove causation here?
Oh, you're totally right, we certainly do not need that to *work* on
improving bug report handling by maintainers.
It just takes that evidence to convince *me* that such aspec
On Friday, March 29, 2013 13:46:56, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:35:59PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > As such, there's an issue of "public perception" that may need
> > consideration.
>
> […]
>
> > I simultaneously acknowledge the problem of making a "DD expulsion
> >
On 03/29/2013 01:46 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:35:59PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> I'm open to other theories as to the cause. I am, however, a bit surprised
>> that you'd completely dismiss the theory I've proposed so quickly.
>> let you know that I regularly bu
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:35:59PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> As such, there's an issue of "public perception" that may need
> consideration.
[…]
> I simultaneously acknowledge the problem of making a "DD expulsion
> list" public; that's not exactly the kind of "trophy" anyone would
> want to obt
On 29-03-13 18:03, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
>> I agree with this. This is why I proposed[1] a while back to look into
>> clarifying which parts of policy really only apply to "packages uploaded
>> to Debian", as opposed to "packages for local use", which may have
>> differe
On Friday, March 29, 2013 09:41:23, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:37:18PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Technically the DAM has the ability to act to remove a DD (per Debian
> > Constitution 8.1 item 2), but the information I can gather so far seems
> > to indicate that th
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I agree with this. This is why I proposed[1] a while back to look into
> clarifying which parts of policy really only apply to "packages uploaded
> to Debian", as opposed to "packages for local use", which may have
> different requirements in some cases.
> There wasn't
On 29-03-13 10:45, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> As Moray said, we should advertise more heavily why it's useful to
> package for Debian. But I think that we should also aim at making it
> easier to:
> - package that software as proper Debian packages
> - distribute that software inside Debian (when it i
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:37:18PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Technically the DAM has the ability to act to remove a DD (per Debian
> Constitution 8.1 item 2), but the information I can gather so far seems to
> indicate that the DAM won't expell a DD for disciplanary problems.
FWIW, that is no
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> However, this topic does raise a question: Knowledge transfer. I might
> be arguing on something marginally related to the vote at hand, but
> anyway, when delegations shift (be it due to burnout, retirement,
> rotation or whatever), we should make it as easy as possible to
Hi,
On 24/03/13 at 15:47 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> There are third party vendors (read: propietary) that support the
> installation
> of their software in Debian, but mostly because selfish reasons: they need to
> be present everywhere for their business model to work.
19 matches
Mail list logo
