Bikeshedding

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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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 sta

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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't care that muc

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

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

Re: Q to all candidates: spending money

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org [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

Re: Q to all candidates: the DPL team

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

Thoughts/questions for any candidate

(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

Re: Q to all candidates: spending money

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 -- To

Re: ballot

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

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

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 it

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

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

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

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 set to

Re: Alternative proposal (+call for seconds): Expire 2-R members every year

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

Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members

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

Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 with Steve

Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover

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

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org 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

Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 cjwatson

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 Ian,

Re: Some stats on gr_initcoupling

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 that it

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 dropping

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte 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 a...@erisian.com.au

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 necessarily

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

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

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

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'.

Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]

-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 vor...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:32:36PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:48:33PM +0300, Aigars

Re: Tentative summary of the amendments

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

Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

-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

Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain

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 encourage

Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

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

Maximum term for tech ctte members

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 a...@erisian.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

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: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: +At this time

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

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

Re: Bug#636783: TC process GRs

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 a...@erisian.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org

Re: More votes in Debian? Any idea for improvement?

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 lots

Re: Question for Stefano: Length of the DPL term

, but there might be merit in more inventive tweaks than just adjusting the term length. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au

Re: Standardization, large scale changes, innovations

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

Re: Standardization, large scale changes, innovations

good, or if anyone would be willing to volunteer, on the other hand...) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au -- 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

Re: Q for the Candidates: How many users?

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 reports 91,523 submissions

Q for the Candidates: How many users?

, 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 a...@erisian.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ

Re: Question to all candidates: financing of development

out in participating in the first year Google ran GSoC; that both would've required a very quick response though, and it's possible letting other projects try these things first and only adopting things proven to work is a good idea anyway) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au

Re: Question to all candidates: financing of development

like a pretty fantastic bid from the German cabal. I think this demonstrates that sometimes putting up with a bunch of crap in the short term really does result in a way better eventual outcome. YMMV of course. -- Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ

Re: Bits from the release team and request for discussion

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 worked out quite well

Re: What will improve Debian most?

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 iPhone

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

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 valid option

Re: What will improve Debian most?

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. The

Re: What will improve Debian most?

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

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

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

What will improve Debian most?

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?

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

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 decision making [...] I would

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

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 undocumented over doctrinal disputes

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

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 discussions

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

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 === === === === ===

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

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. One way

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

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 implementation I'm not too surprised

Re: gr_lenny vs gr_socialcontract

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

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

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 | social contract

Re: gr_lenny vs gr_socialcontract

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, market share). To paraphrase

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

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

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

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 contract is

gr_lenny vs gr_socialcontract

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

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

(FD) 123- Wouter Verhelst (FD) --12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM) James Troup (keyring) Jonathan McDowell (keyring) Debian maintainer keyring team: Joey Hess 1342 Anthony Towns 1342 Anibal Monsalve Salazar Debian maintainer keyring team, additional commit

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

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 , |

Re: Q: All: Account creation latency

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 debian

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 members ten years later. I think this sentence

Re: Technical committee resolution

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

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 rampaging

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 AJ. Because, of course, making

Re: Technical committee resolution

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

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 I'm not sure that Ian deciding that he

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 address that directly? Stagnation's one

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 limit the term of tech-ctte

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 try

Re: Technical committee resolution

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 can

Re: All Candidates: Do you plan to be prominently visible during your term?

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 quite

Re: Raphael Hertzog: When to commit into repositories of teams?

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 and

Technical committee resolution

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

Re: Technical committee resolution

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, email to [EMAIL

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt

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

Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC chairmanship

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 solve

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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): Well,

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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't as

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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 language should dictate the technical means we

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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 way to

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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 about

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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

Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM

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 technical position that involves keeping some

Re: electing multiple people

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:33:54PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: +If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is +created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength. +If there are

Re: electing multiple people

On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: It's probably better than the first solution, as the first solution isn't clone-proof: we could have elected n Sams!! ;) So the first question is why would that be a bad thing? (Of course, we don't have n Sams, we only have

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:56:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: What happens when you send a single email like that has already been demonstrated: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html Add

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:42:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: That was 23rd March. There wasn't a reply, and my access wasn't removed. Early April was the release, and at that point debconf was close enough that I don't think I bothered doing anything more until then, at which point I stayed

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: (Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the other cases

Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the reasons outlined by Jeff in: http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing. Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: I doubt this, honestly. For one thing, I doubt that AJ, as much as that may be tempting, would actually hold a grudge that way for very long; [...] I also think Aj would be open to

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Also, on another front, adding AJ, Joey, and Ryan Murray to a team isn't exactly helping with getting new people involved who might have more free time. How many other hats do those three people already wear? Oh, for me: ftpmaster,

Re: The Debian Maintainers GR

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:20:32AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If n-m were working well, or even I thought it had any hope of working well, I expect I'd be all for this being unified with n-m -- after all, that's what I'd thought

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >