Le Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 11:41:08AM +0100, Ilu a écrit :
> There is also no way and no necessity to adapt the GA text based on
> unofficial rumors since ...
>
> > ... the answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and
> > consider each bullet point we make --- ... the European
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
> > >
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> This is also something we discussed before sending this call for
> votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing
> political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a
> GR.
The less we know about
Le Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 04:14:51PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:06:42PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > On 2023/11/26 21:24, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > We should not just put out a statement just because others have done so,
> >
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 09:59:16AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> As I understand, the EU legislative process is quite advanced now, and
> I doubt we have the time to build "the perfect response". And the
> answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and consider
> each bullet point we
Le Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 07:38:40PM +0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit :
> Hi Bill
>
> On 2023/11/24 19:14, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
> >
> > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
> >
> > The D
Dear Developers,
I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing
a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability
Directive' that
Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens a écrit :
>
> The Debian project asks the EU to not draw a line between commercial
> and non-commercial use of FOSS.
But the EU already does, all the time, really. This is simply not
realistic.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl
Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem
> excessive to me:
>
> Constitution changes:
>
> +---
> | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> | [...]
> | 5.1.5.3: A
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Excuse me to insist with vocabulary, but since you've use the word "law" 6
> times above: the EU isn't a state or a nation, and doesn't make laws. We're
> talking about "directives", that eventually will be implemented as laws in
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 04:54:30PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100]:
> > Dear Debian voters,
> >
> > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if
> > only to show we exists, I am quite sure
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:37:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear Debian voters,
> >
> > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if
> > only to show we exists, I am quite sure
Dear Debian voters,
While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if
only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary for Debian
to issue such statement, and I am quite unconvinced the GR process is the best
option for the purpose of drafting such statement.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge if it
> ever comes to it".
>
> Or even "I've seen this in other licenses, can't hurt, let's
Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Philip Hands a écrit :
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
> ...
> > I agree it doesn't make sense for either organization to change
> > approach. I do believe that what we are seeing in this vote, however,
> > is that Debian _is_ changing tactics: rather than
Le Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:23:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> > However, I'm pointing out that Debian generally follows a different
> > tactic. And I don't think that it would be a good idea for Debian to
> > switch tactics.
>
> Right, I agree, although my perception is that Debian is
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +0000, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> > Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> > your hardware is better than having it loaded from y
Le Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
> under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
> hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the
Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:56:07AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> Do you too agree with the position that having non-free firmware stored in
> your hardware is better than having it loaded from your OS?
My position is that the laws governing embedded firmware are much
more favorable to the
Le Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:19:59PM +, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> >> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to requir
Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require
> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the
> hardware manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> else's choices
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:17:49PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> I'm glad to see that secret votes as we have now didn't seem to encourage
> 'opinions about non-technical issues outside the social contract'. So far,
> such
> GR proposal reached zero support,
Debatable, as the archive
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>
> This is a proposal for Debian to issue a statement on an
> issue of the day as given as an
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:40:36AM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> > If there was a single Debian foundation, Debian members would be split
> > between those that are in the juridiction of the foundation and those
> > that are not and the former would be inevitably advantaged.
>
> Would moving
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 09:41:49AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Currently, the Project has no legal standing of its
> own, meaning that within any legal context, there is no Project.
Indeed, it is a great feature of Debian that it is not bound to any
particular juridiction, it only exists
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 05:30:30PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Jonathan has already addressed this in his platform, acknowledging Brian
> Gupta's 2020 campaign focus on this, so this is mostly a question for
> Hideki and Felix:
>
> What is your position on registering Debian as an
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:56:07PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi Bill,
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:12:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Anyway, how do we proceed here?
> > We should merge them! Maybe you could suggest a new wording ?
>
> given that
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 11:26:28AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes:
>
> > In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
> > have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
> > simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 06:41:54PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
> >conduct a vote via email. There are no current plans to move away from
>
> This is a very bad idea.
>
> Alternative solutions may
> • have accessibility
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:47:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > A suggestion:
> >
> > An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
> > accessible by DD (or more generally t
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> > achieve fully,
A suggestion:
An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
they did not not).
This would still allow voters to check the vote but would not allow
outside parties to use it (unless some DD leaks it,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and
> > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals
> > of openness and transparency.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. From some
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:21:04PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi Bill,
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:10:53AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Ballot Option
> > =
> >
> > 1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at t
Dear developers,
I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
Ballot Option
=
1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at this
time.
2) General resolutions that probe developpers opinions about non-technical
issues
outside the social contract
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 04:14:34PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
>
>
> You are absolutely right.
> And in fact Don proposes to embody a requirement in the constitution
> that would prevent plausible deniabili
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> TL;DR: I'm proposing that the way we handle DPL elections today is a
> good start for what secret means.
Alas it does not work since it does not provide plausible deniability.
Let me explain. For DD election, devotee publish a
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Hello Russ,
Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I think we should aim at shortening the voting period too, but likely not
> by much. I would make the voting period last at least 9 days (and no more
> than 14) with a requirement to include two week-ends. Then the secretary
>
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:56:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to
> > the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not
> > have allocate time to partic
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:01:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Having closely followed a bunch of GRs now, my personal impression is that
> almost all of the substantitive discussion happens in the first week.
> Some discussion continues into the second week, and for controversial GRs
> a few
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:18:24PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Acting together with themselves? ;-)
Thank you.
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please CC me).
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require
you to
write
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
(this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in 20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig)
Asking for seconds,
(please CC me)
Bill. ballo...@debian.org
This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:06AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:02:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
RATIONALE (to be amended
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):
First of all, thanks a lot for your helpful contribution to this discussion.
2. This clause is incompatible
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
PROPOSAL START
===
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project, which have
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:53:19PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 +
Sam Kuper sam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the
final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
motivation?
I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.
The purpose of
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Asking for seconds.
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
Public License are not
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:43, Bill Allombert wrote:
Questions raised in the discussion period that are relevant to the GR.
This summary is all very nice, but IMHO does not reflect what this GR is
about.
...
What this GR
Dear Debian voters,
I was asked to provide a summary of the current GR. Please keep in mind
that the discussion period is over and that I am the proposer.
Background: for as long as a I am DD, developers were allowed to
perform binary-only upload. The FTP masters have removed this right for
ARM
Hello Debian developers,
According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the
requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007,
---
The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
combined source and binary packages
Dear Debian voters,
I hereby propose the following General Resolution for sponsoring.
---
The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
Dear Debian voters,
I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther
Dear Debian voters,
I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther.
=
The Debian project resolves that:
1) Sven Luther is the best Debian developer ever. Ever.
2) The Debian
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor
is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the
May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ?
relevant
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
their body by banning
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:12:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall
vote;
Apart from the fact that these are under separate sections of
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know
why you seconded this.
Did he ? Frederik accepted the amendment but did not second it as far as
I see.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
| firmware issue; however, it is not yet
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean
having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in our
installer, and releasing etch according to schedule. Did you mean for 4 to
say
Dear Debian developers,
As an amendement to the firmware GR, I hereby propose the following
position statement.
===
THE DEBIAN PROJECT:
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
our users according to our Social Contract
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:03:47AM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I propose the following option to the GR:
PROPOSAL
The Debian Project reaffirms its commitment of providing a 100% free
operating system, and reaffirms the decisions taken by GR 2004-03, but
some technical issues regarding
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
I am quite concerned you still did not get past that.
social_contract.1.1 has been voted upon
Hello GR proponents,
before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
reduce the usefulness of
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then:
we created the non-free and
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:01:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
equivalent of the kernel
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:16:34AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
4. In light of the well organised presence of Skolelinux and the
professional presence of Ubuntu at several conferences and exhibitions
do you believe Debian is represented adequately?
I know it is a biaised view point, but
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:18:39AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I am not in favour of such code. I am in favour of giving
general guidelines and but not to enforce them. People should follow
them because they agree with them
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:02:37PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I admit I haven't read the platforms as thoroughly as I should've, so
forgive if it was covered...
IIRC nobody talked about SPI in their platform. Is SPI important for
Debian? What is Debian's current relationship with
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:38:51PM -0800, Ted Walther wrote:
Hi Bill. As the packager of ratmenu, I've had to grapple with the
menu package, which you maintain.
Bill, can you tell us the reason you chose to implement your own unique
configuration language for menu? Why did you choose to
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why would we need more total CPU time? Not even leisner is
overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
(leisner has a different problem, though).
Hence, please explain why we need more total CPU time and
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:17:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's non-technical
socio-religious views in the reasoning for or against expulsion?
I
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Now my question:
1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
openly?
2.) Would you
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The process to expel a developer is described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html
I am not sure whether all expulsion attempts get far enough
to be recorded on -private or -project as described in
the
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Now my question:
1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
openly?
2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
3.) Do you think more DSA are needed?
I would like to
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:59:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Not that I couldn't have learned that also later, when I really needed
it. But the NM process was in fact a good opportunity to learn it
right, get immediate feedback on my achievements (and not via the
BTS...), and to take it
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
During DPL campaigning, it seems in for candidates to propose all
sorts of Great Things they will try to do once elected. While this is
obviously all interesting information, it leaves out something that, I
think, is also
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
Though there are often threads about problems with it on our mailing
lists, the NM process hasn't changed much in the last three or four
years. What do you think about the most common problems (takes too
long, is
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:45:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Bill,
You write in your platform that
-- I am independent, so I will be able to represent all the developers.
What is it that you're independent from that other candidates aren't, and
how exactly does independence help
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi everyone,
If you had to summarize your platform with 3 keywords, what would they be ?
If such a necessity were forced upon me, I would answer
Liberté Égalité Fraternité.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:25:49AM +0100, Jutta Wrage wrote:
In all other plattforms there are only minor validation problems that
can be corrected easily without making a noticible difference. But as
far as I can see, none of the pages really was valid HTML strict and
none (or nearly
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:58:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Questions for all candidates:
If elected, you will be the ninth Project Leader in Debian's history. Of
the preceding eight DPLs, which one do you admire most as a leader and why?
Well, I don't know much about the four first
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:12:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand, this aspect is completly lost in Ubuntu. Most major
design decisions in Ubuntu are made by developers working for Canonical,
not volunteers.
This is entirely untrue
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:01:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The campaign period is open according to
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_002, so here are two questions for all
of the candidates.
1. The past two years have seen higher numbers of candidates standing for DPL
than in
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:18:55PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:23:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi everybody,
here are some questions for all candidates. They are related to the
Debian-Ubuntu cooperation. (If you're not a candidate and wish to give me
your opinion on that subject, please do so by private mail or move the
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:00:25PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Martin was running this year, I would not. The last year the DPL focus
^
has shifted from technical leadership to social leadership, and Debian
is more attractive
Dear Debian developers,
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the next Debian Project
Leader.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red swirl here.
pgpZkdaUzNvnp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:10:14AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The problem is, if DFSG #5 and #6 mean what you think they mean, they
effectively prevent _all_ license restrictions whatsoever. Because if
DFSG 6 is only about license restrictions on usage. It does not cover
restriction on
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:10:55PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
using the software.
Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
documentation if they work in a security field
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
