Hi *,
"More of a comment than a question..."
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:17:00AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I am disappointed when people leave bitter and disheartened.
That's still kind-of better than if they're bitter and disheartened,
but won't go away though!
One of the things I often think
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:28:40PM +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 06:51 +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It is obviously okay for anyone who posted to disclose what they
> > wrote
> > to -private at any point; maybe a feasible and interesting starting
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:28:37PM +, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I had a longer reply to the rest of this mail, but I'm not seeing
the point.
> Which leads me to a repeat of a point I've seen before (and I didn't follow
> the
> entire discussion, so I may have missed an answer to it): are there any
>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le dimanche, 11 septembre 2016, 11.01:09 h CEST Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > In that sense, my reading of the original version of the GR that just
> > failed was pretty much "eh, we don'
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:36:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also
> > need some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, [...]
> Furthermore, I think it's unrealistic that such a space won'
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> My understanding is that at least some of us don't want a generic
> process right now, but would be quite fine with someone trying to work
> out a process that works for a well defined subset of debian-private.
That's... an interes
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:53:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Something like that, yes. It might even be possible to, for example,
> infer what the topic of an activity spike was likely to be, and then
> infer from timing who was giving input into sensitive discussions;
> [...]
> Detailed traffi
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:13:22PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale?
> Hopefully https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00308.html
> helps explain :)
This s
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]:
> > However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that
> > surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than
> > they are now.
> Why? What target level a
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> The DPL already has the power to delegate tasks. I do not see how
> electing more than one person would help with sharing the work: if it
> can be shared, it is already possible to do so.
Hey, that's a good question. How /is/ electing
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:07:21PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> question to all candidates:
> Will you revoke <20131008134615.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info> or do you
> think this authorization is useful?
Link: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/10/msg1.html
Cheers,
aj
--
(Hmm, I tried sending this via gmail, but it doesn't appear to have
either gone through or bounced?)
Hi,
Reading through the DPL platforms this year, there are a couple of themes
that interest me...
Number one is something like "where should the innovation come from?"
GN> You may notice that u
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, [December] 18th, 2014
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 31th, 2014
I wonder if it would make sense for the project leader to extend the
voting
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:01:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the
> root"):
> > I think it's worth keeping those conceptually separate; if you've got an
> > arbitrator, it's impo
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:13:06PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Matthias" == Matthias Urlichs writes:
> Matthias> I'm more in favor of the TC _being_ that mediation group.
> Matthias> I don't see any advantage in separating these roles.
So I think there's two styles of dispute resol
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> From those who want to drop the CTTE, I'd like to know what would they
> have done to decide upon the init system for Jessie.
There were two aspects to that question: do we support non-default
init systems, and which is the def
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:34:14PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think it would be better if ctte members did not bring disputes to the ctte
> and then vote on the resolution of that dispute. [...]
One thing I'd been pondering suggesting was that the ctte change how they
view "requests". ATM
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:37:30PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> The TC might be temporarily weakened by having more young members;
While this is conceivable, I don't think it's even remotely likely in
practice -- there is a huge pool of brilliant people in Debian to draw
from, and the work unde
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > +7. Term limit:
> > + 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
> > +who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one
> > +of the two most senior members is se
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to
> me.
FWIW, I'd say the opposite -- I'd say negotiating about the content of the
ballot is what it looks like when you're trying to come to a consensus;
and that
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > - only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S
> FWIW I think either of those deals with the concerns I raised, as it's
> going to be way too much effort to game that, and I cannot se
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This approach seems like it focuses too much on aggregate committee
> turnover, rather than just setting a term limit.
Term limits rather than turnover was what I proposed originally; the
response to that was that people were conce
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past
> > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has
> > > also been long periods without much activity, [...]
FWIW, I agree wit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:09:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that the "2-R" behaviour is more desirable, as it avoids 2 years
> without replacements in 2017 and 2018. Note that this isn't about the
> "2-R" rule as we could have the same behaviour by keeping the "2" rule
> and simply dr
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:20:21PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, J??r??my Bobbio wrote:
> > To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> > half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> > fed up tha
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> arguments below, but I don't find them convincing. Specifically,
Note that with
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
> Colin) is:
> aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
> bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
> cjwat
of just 4 members, all of whom were
appointed more than 54 months ago. If so, no one's term will expire.
However if additional members are appointed in the next year, then the 2
most senior members' terms will expire at the next review round.)" would be
better? I'm not sure if this needs explaining though?
I wonder if "four and a half years (54 months)" would be better.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:34:13AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've briefly discussed this off list with Sam Hartman, who proposed a
> sensible rationale (although not necessarily the same Antony had in
> mind). The rationale is avoiding suddenly under staffing the ctte too
> much, making it
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:54:26PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - I haven't mentioned it yet publicly (still due to ENOTIME), but I
> still have mixed feelings about the provision that allows "younger"
> ctte members to step down, inhibiting the expiry of "older" members.
> I'm not nece
particularly active in Debian over the past few years,
and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing resolutions
(particularly constitutional changes!) to people who have been. So, as
I've said before, happy to offer a second, but I don't expect to make
an actual proposal.
Ch
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
> freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100
-project dropped -- no need to spam multiple lists, and -vote seems
like the right place for this topic to me.
On 28 October 2014 02:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:32:36PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:48:33PM +0300, Aigars Mahin
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:48:33PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 24 October 2014 13:15, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:57:49PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> >> No developer in that chain was compelled
> >> to run this under other init syst
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:57:49PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> No developer in that chain was compelled
> to run this under other init systems.
Well, yeah:
"1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
work for the Project."
Compelling developers isn't something that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
>
>
> The Debian project asks its
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
> doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
> nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
> nominees at all).
In that
t having
> it in the GR text (but still not in the constitution itself) would be
> good enough IMO.
Given the convoluted wording, I think it makes sense to have a bit of
an explanation in the text itself, and not just in the GR.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:43:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
have to do while
on the ctte").
Cheers,
aj
[0] I'm pretty sure it was Stefano, my memory of that night's possibly
kinda blurry...
--
Anthony Towns
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe&q
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:06:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a ??crit :
> > I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has
> > already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals
> > add policy
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno T?ll wrote:
> > That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view
> > that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement
> > for their packages. Finally I enco
ms like
having that be separate from the ctte's duties in general would be a
better plan than allowing discussions to go secret whenever someone
thinks it would be "counterproductive".
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debia
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:19:44PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To make this concrete, we had a spat of GRs to decide various technical
> and social issues in Debian some years back, and that practice has died
> out almost completely. I know I at least much prefer the current
> situation to when l
the secretary to call an election with not
much harm done.
No idea if it'd work, of course, but there might be merit in more inventive
tweaks than just adjusting the term length.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
sation
supported by generous donations at every level, is (and can only be)
based on persuasion, because ultimately there isn't any other reason
or way for anything to happen.
I'm not sure whether you'd count that as saying it is how we've
behaved as a project (because it must be), or isn't (because it's
generally not at the forefront of people's minds).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/n2q87b3a4191004072224j5caaf27av1809dbd837213...@mail.gmail.com
defend ideas you personally
think are wrong, and attack ones you personally think are right.
Whether it would do any good, or if anyone would be willing to
volunteer, on the other hand...)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debia
So at the start of the week, I asked:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:19:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bearing in mind:
> * www.debian.org/social_contract says Debian's "priorities are our
> users and free software",
> * popcon.debian.org currently
ot; announcement didn't help for example. But
it's a hard job. I'd say a lack of support, or equivalently,
sufficient opposition, can make it impossible.
> I'm personally the most concerned with the social issues. A delayed
> release can be frustrating but does
trick question,
What's your estimate of the current number of Debian users?
(Or, if by the time you've read this some of the other candidates have
already responded, how would you adjust their estimate/s?)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ..
I can tell, the process we ended up using for
DebConf 7 that resulted in the Bosnia team losing, this year resulted
in a clear win for an improved Bosnian bid for DebConf 11, even
against what seemed like a pretty fantastic bid from the German cabal.
I think this demonstrates that som
a
prompt delegation so that someone was authorised to register the
project with Google and setup mentors and so forth. (I'm pretty sure
the lack of a quick response was what meant we missed out in
participating in the first year Google ran GSoC; that both would've
required a very quick re
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > About freeze timing we think that DebConf should definitely not fall
> > into a freeze
> > We noticed that releases in the first quarter of the year
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> You're also making some implicit assumptions about what is available -
> are there really 9855 new projects that should have been added to Debian
> last year that weren't?
Via twitter [0] here's another point of comparison: the iPho
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. [...]
> I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I wouldn't say that's particularly quickly; but given the varying release
> > times, it's a bit hard to really tell. Correcting for that:
> > release datedays s.p.d p.p.d sg.p.a pg.p.a
> > hamm 1998-07-24
> >
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:43PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
] Campaigning period: Sunday, March 8th 00:00:00 UTC, 2009
]- Saturday, March 28th 23:59:59 UTC, 2009
Hmmm... Cutting it fine...
> Depending on what you're measuring, we are still growing very quickly.
> Th
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:49:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Over the next twelve months, what single development/activity/project
> > is going to improve Debian's value the most? By how much? How will
> > you be involved?
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discu
Hi *,
So looking through the nominations, platforms and the current -vote
threads, I'm left wondering if any of this actually matters. Only two
candidates running, no IRC debate or rebuttals added to the platforms,
and only a couple of topics people have even raised for the candidates
to address?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> But the way you wrote in 4 as "we will make any private discussions
> publically available at the earliest opportunity." is problematic since
> it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along "we will make
> any private discussio
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much:
> I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian un
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I would personally prefer
> > for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things
> > on a day-to-day basis through regular deci
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> I'm not ashamed at all; I joine
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
> and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
> by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. O
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
> option x received over option y.
> Option
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> === === === ===
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social cont
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
> state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
> dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
> >> principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you will,
> >>
> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple
> > > GR ]
> > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > > | s
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Putting an USB key into most of my servers requires some hours of
> driving and jumping through security hoops to get datacenter access.
> [...]
> I'd prefer an OS which allows full remote installation that does not
> need some kind of p
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> > (or at least I) mightn't expect.
> > ...
> > Matthew Johnson - voted for implem
Hello world,
I'd like to briefly suggest a different perspective on the issues at hand.
Rather than looking at whether this will delay lenny or not, it might be
more useful to just take a step back and work out what our principles are.
FWIW, I think what should be done about lenny follows pretty o
ot;"
means "didn't vote", and going from www.d.o/intro/organization for who
holds what positions):
DPL:
4132 Steve McIntyre
New-maintainer:
--1- Christoph Berg (FD,DAM)
Michael Koch (FD)
123- Wouter Verhelst (FD)
--12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?
> > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> > ,
> > | http
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:45AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I think the "problem" would be trivial to fix. The DAM should be the
> party that makes the *policy decision*, and then DSA should be tasked
> with actually creating the account, and keyring-maint with adding the
> key to the debia
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:46 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
> >> is
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Redoing the new blood thing once again is unlikely to have much
> of an effect, really. I think we need to find some of the root causes
> of the malaise that affects this institution, and fix that, rather
> than rampagi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:32:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> An alternative is to throw out the member who is youngest.
No, that would again ensure stagnancy in the group, with the older members
being permanently appointed.
> Or use birth month to throw out
Likewise.
> -- the me
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think the committee would be worse off without you; and I find
> > it fundamentally disturbing that any of the founding members are still
> > me
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
> is AJ.
Because, of course, making things personal is definitely what the
technical committee is all about, and just generally a brilliant approach
to solving proble
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
> > stagnate again in future.
> Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to addre
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You don't need to read my mind, you can read Ian's recent post on the
> > topic, eg:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2008/03/msg0.html
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> in the last few years, it has unfortunately become kind of custom that
> the DPL kind of vanishes from the Earth after the wave of inauguration
> and taking over powers has ebbed. Anthony has been kind of an
> exception (since he was qui
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:49:02 +0100, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Where is the use case for added churn and loss of institutional
> memory?
Old members can advise new members if they wish, and new members c
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing more specifics on how you think it's
> disfunctional and why you think this change will fix the problems that you
> see. I think I have a vague idea of how you're connecting the dots, but
> I'd rather not
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> > term, so we get new blood in the committee,
> Would it then be better to limi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28PM +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
>5. As the primary duties of the Technical Committee is to resolve
^^
That should be "duty", before anyone else points it out... (Props to
Hubert Chathi)
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Hello world,
I've been thinking for a while [0] it'd be good to do a real revamp of
the tech ctte. It's been pretty dysfunctional since forever, there's
not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since it's
almost entirely self-appointed and has no oversight whatsoever the only
wa
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:52PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> revision control repositories of a team where the person leading the
> team is active an
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:11AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> If you
> can't decide between me an another candidate who is more committed, rank
> me lower on your ballot.
So far that's not looking likely...
If anyone's tossing up whether to nominate or not, here's some thoughts
to con
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and
> TC chairmanship"):
> > And FWIW, I don't think TC failed to rule because of the majority
> > rules, but just because the issue was technically not easy to
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:00:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is almost that time of the year again. Indeed, it is later
> this year, since we had a GR last year shortening the time intervals
> for the election
Hrm, seems like neither the website nor doc-debian.deb have been up
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:34:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > We might be able to form a group and create a tool with such properties,
> > but it will take time. It takes longer if people sit around complaining
> > about how it's someone else's responsibility to take the initiative. It
> > isn
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:55:10AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel wrote:
> Considering that this is probably a "language misunderstanding"
> from a non-native speaker (myself), when you say "there weren't any
> candidates for additional DAMs" that means (from what you heard, of
> course):
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 2007/11/19, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
> > > lang
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
> language should dictate the technical means we should choose. I'm
> really happy that James does not prefer say PL/I and we would be forced
> to clone an existing
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:58AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > James was directly involved in getting the current form to happen;
> > the need for change was a shock to the rest of us, not James or Joey.
> Okay "shock" may be the wrong word, but for sure he thinks the current
> process is w
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-18 04:48]:
> > DAM (and FD, and AMs and nm.debian.org) is a policy position -- it's
> > about deciding who's allowed to do what, rather than a techn
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 09:00:43PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Though, you skip a tiny little detail: how do you will make this real?
> Not technically, I believe all those things you describe are technically
> trivial. I mean socially. We have the current issue that:
I don't think there's a
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 02:36:25PM +0100, Mario Iseli wrote:
> on the #debian-newmaint there was just a (quite long) discussion started by
> Enrico Zini who had the idea to fix the DAM by adding 2, 3 more people via a
> GR. I
> think that this would be a good idea. There were also discussions abou
1 - 100 of 1463 matches
Mail list logo
