Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Discussing problems in public works very well if two people like
> eachother. If they don't, however, you get two people cursing at
> eachother. Now there are some people who really don't mind doing that in
> public; but when things get messy, not being messy out in the ope
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Disclaimer: I don't know the technical setup of www.d.o, so I don't
> know if there is a different between commit time and publish time.
> Until I fix this ignorance of mine, that would surely block me from
> committing, for instance :-) ]
No, there is not. The websit
On Saturday 20 March 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It is of course reasonable to require that people familiarize themselves
> with how things are set up before being given access. But beyond that,
> if they are Debian Developers, getting access to the webwml repository
> is a no-brainer, AIUI.
>
>
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> 1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
>> control makes it easy to undo changes, minimizing risk and
>> impact, are there any legitimate reasons why this repository
>> should be restricted to a group any smaller than the whole of
>> gid 800?
>
> N
Reading Wouter's post in this thread just now I realize I made a fairly
stupid mistake when writing my mail.
Frans Pop wrote:
> This seems to be what the RT has been focussing on after Sarge. [...]
s/Sarge/Etch/
> During the Sarge release these two sides were in balance. Afte
Margarita Manterola wrote:
> I think that most of the frustration comes from the fact that the
> release team is lacking manpower. The job of the release team is very
> stressful and very rarely do the RM and RA feel that their work is
> appreciated.
I disagree. I think the main problem is that t
Marc Haber wrote:
> In the last years I have seen a really disturbing development in
> Debian: New developers are very interested in bringing new packages
> into Debian, but care for our core infrastructure (dpkg, apt) has a
> little bit diminished.
Good question and quite true.
IMO it's worth ad
MJ Ray wrote:
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
>> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the
>> highest number of seconds win?
>
> That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I
> recommend
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
>> minimum support for an opinion.
>
> It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
Ben Finney wrote:
> A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
> prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
> person prefers that option to appear on the ballot.
Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence
with "F
> Seconded!
>
> I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already.
Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win [1]?
/me also watches Kurt scrambling to keep up with the amendmends, seconds
and rescinds and would like to note that he seems to
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
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, t
> PROPOSAL START
> ===
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> with 804 developers, nearly has much as today slightly over 1000
> de
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
> interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also pl
I'm not replying to Mohammed as unfortunately I'm missing at least a few
steps in his argumentation.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Interpretation of resolutions is best left to those who are expected to
> implement them.
I'd agree when it goes to implementation details. However, my request is
more o
On Wednesday 24 December 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: -vote really is the wrong list to discuss this on; Cc'ing debian-cd
> so knowledgeable people there can tell me I'm on crack.
Yes, I'm afraid you are ;-)
First of all, this does not only affect CD images, but installer images in
general (t
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been so frustrated with things over the
past week that I decided to take a break and see how things worked out
first.
On Monday 15 December 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]:
> > Because any votes below F
(Restricting to d-vote.)
Thank you for your quick reply.
On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> But note that even if the super-majority issue causes some choices to
> have a low priority of winning, we the project at large can still learn
> very interesting things by studying the Co
Dear Steve and Bdale,
Given that the current status of the current "lenny firmware" vote is that
it will go forward, I would appreciate if the DPL and/or the Project
Secretary could rule on the following issue.
In the discussion about the vote various people have argued that a vote
for "furthe
Hello Bdale,
Thanks a lot for this mail. I had been planning to write a mail asking for
a standpoint on the vote, but I'm glad I waited long enough for this to
arrive first.
On Monday 22 December 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> It is clear that there are flaws with the way the current b
(Adding -project and including full quote of dato's reply (excluding
signature) as that was not sent to that list.)
> * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
> > How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote
> > is to play into the hands of thos
> If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and,
> in particular, with the resulting ballot and its 7 options, I invite
> you to participate in this unofficial vote and, optionally, to show
> your discontent by ranking "Further Discussion" above all other options
> in the off
Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my
vote?
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100
Message-Id: <200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl>
Thanks,
FJP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I am dense. Please help me understand. If I have a
> Microsoft device and they provide an opensource Linux installer which
> ships a Windows Mobile based firmware then how would this not meet your
> distribution criteria? When considering Silverlight(tm) devel
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> So it would be legitimate to distribute an install image for Windows
> Mobile cellular phones as a package in main? After all, its "firmware".
> The device won't be running Debian. It will almost certainly have a
> different architecture than the desktop. Lots of people have
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> The bug reporters see the tags, [...]
Not true by default, only if they subscribe to the BR.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
> really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the
> subject prior to every release.
I completely agree with that.
> [0] http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lenny-ignore
>
Given that this is supposed to be the discussion period, I'd like to share
my standpoint regarding one option.
Andreas Barth wrote:
> | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> | case-by-case-decis
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
> have _all_ the possible courses of
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
>
> | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
> | hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
> | It is not code that is run on the host CPU.
> |
> | Unfortunat
On Friday 14 November 2008, you wrote:
> But you have to see that castrating the ideals of the project is just
> as damaging as these distribution problems are. I believe Debian has
> remained important over time because, despite our various social
> failings, they *respect* our ideology. We remain
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm certainly in favor of Debian going in this direction. Ideals are fine,
but castrating the distribution for them is taking things to far. IMO we
can still strife and work to have more source made available to the
c
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds.
To be very blunt and direct: I think your a teensy, weeny bit late with
this. We're currently already working on an alternate proposal. And that
one has gotten a fairly big number of seconds. I really
The title of option 2 contains a typo: s/propietary/proprietary/.
I hereby second the options 2 and 3 of Robert's proposal as quoted below.
Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~
1. We affirm
Although I take exception to some of the name calling that has been
done against Charles and Lucas, I am fine with switching to this
alternative proposal as its ultimate intend is identical: to safeguard
that no changes are made to something as fundamental to the project
as its membership procedure
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members;
>
> - Because of the strong opposition to the m
I would second this proposal for basically the same reasons as Lucas, but
there is one sentence I think needs to be improved.
Charles Plessy wrote:
> In accordance to the paragraph 4.2.2 of the constition, this
> suspension takes immediately effect until a procedural vote decides if
> the s
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> This is a technical dispute? Whether your packages need to comply with
> the DFSG?
Isn't a dispute about alternative fixes for a bug a technical dispute?
I thought that was your point.
The violation itself is not a matter for the TC (altho
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the Technical Committee?
signature.asc
Description: This i
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
> of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are never acceptable for packages that
are in general activel
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> the hardware for installation" as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
> So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?
No, it's not OK.
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Anyway, I'd agree to stripping down the detailed procedure, but you still
Sorry for not replying to this thread before.
IMO it is definitely worthwhile to clarify the role of core teams within the
project and to establish some kind of framework to ensure that continuity
in
> And you think a little GR telling DPL's "go ahead -- you can do it!"
[...]
> However, feel free to go ahead with make-work; we do need to
> fill up the vote page with more than just DPL votes, and I'll happily
> run GR's.
[...]
> What's next, a GR determining the favourite color of the Debian
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Well, I said
> We should be removing TC members who are ... often wrong.
>
> I'm sure everyone will agree with that statement put like that.
>
> My opinion comes into it when I ask myself `who is ... often wrong'.
> And I don't expect anyone has a very different definiti
ld have been dismissed on January 16 or so,
> because it didn't reach enough supporters.
>
> A third expulsion procedure should have been started on February 21 or
> whatever it was, probably by Frans Pop or whoever retriggered the
> expulsion procedure back then after i presented my
On Monday 05 March 2007 00:32, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I'm not sure why you say they could not do that. AFAICS it would have
> involved a list of keys to block instead of a list of keys to allow, and
> removing a "not" in a test, which doesn't seem all that complicated.
OK. I may be wrong about t
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.
The background is that a number of developers saw a problem (an architecture
lagging some
On Friday 13 October 2006 17:30, Sven Luther wrote:
> And how much of that is directly correlated to your anti-sven campaign ?
The mail is completely neutral and does not contain any negative or personal
remark. And still you are able to interpret it as a personal attack?
Well, ok, let me make i
On Friday 13 October 2006 16:13, Sven Luther wrote:
> For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution
> proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus
> be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not
> possible anymore to amend the cu
On Friday 06 October 2006 14:19, MJ Ray wrote:
> As I've pointed out and repeat again here, getting this wrong may cause
> criminal liability of some resellers and mirrors.
Ack.
> I think it's fair
> for -vote to issue a clear position statement and (hopefully) protect
> the project from attack
On Friday 06 October 2006 14:42, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 10:00]:
> > I paste here the last instance of the draft proposal by the debian
> > kernel team [1]. Well, mostly me and Frederik, with direct input from
> > Manoj, and reflecting assorted comments from
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is not the case. A trivial counter example is the distribution of
> a binary object which is statically linked to (or otherwise in
> combination forms a derivative work of) a GPLed codebase, where the
> copyright holder of the binary obje
On Friday 06 October 2006 02:46, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If you have specific questions about what the GPL says and means,
> please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to clarify it before putting the
> archive in a position which is legally hazardous.
Right, which was exactly my point: this discussion does
On Thursday 05 October 2006 17:19, Frank Küster wrote:
> I can understand that. However, I'd rather have that discussion before
> the GR than after it, when it turns out that people do *not* agree about
> the meaning of it...
Sure. However it makes no sense having a discussion about individual
On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote:
> first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take
> part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer
> IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the
> important information for t
On Monday 02 October 2006 21:36, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> About the "my vote is on sale" bit: I sell my vote against such a
> summary. Meaning: If I am satisfied by the summary I will vote how I
> think best. Otherwise, I don't intend to vote. I might be biased towards
> what kernel/installer/re
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 20:40, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The Debian Project:
> >(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
> >free software, including the availability of source
ee this amendment included. Please *only quote the
amendment itself* when you second it and don't forget to sign your mail.
Cheers,
Frans Pop
START OF AMENDMENT ==
Considering that:
(1) The current discussion about what to do with sourceles
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 11:49, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should
> go to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can
> get a clear answer to the exception question without the outcome being
> tainted by either
nor formally
announced). That would be a perfect example of "tactical vote calling" as
Manoj described at the start of this tread.
Frans Pop
pgplSPCeIUBbi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nced broadly and
a new period to allow for amendmends and counter proposals should be
opened, followed by the normal discussion period.
Completely not amused by the way this whole GR mess is developing,
Frans Pop
pgp15PPFw1Rzi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > implementation of a solution for firmware/non-free drivers in d-i has
> > been discussed but consensus was that there was not much point in
> > working on it while there was no separation in the kernel;
>
> This is half-true.
>
> It i
On Thursday 14 September 2006 13:05, Ron wrote:
> > The Debian Project resolves that:
> >
> >(a) The inclusion in main of sourceless firmware and support in
> > Debian Installer is not a release blocker for the release of Etch.
>
> I believe I would prefer to see this read:
>
> (a) The inc
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 11:09, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The position of the d-i team has so far been presented by Joey Hess and
> > there have been some contributions from other d-i team members (Yoe,
> > p2-mate, bubulle). Joey has given an overview of the impact of removing
> > firmware from m
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with
> > regard to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that
> &g
On Monday 18 September 2006 16:09, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with
> > regard to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that
> > could be considered non-free given the current wording of the Social
> > Contract.
>
> You
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 13:04, MJ Ray wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > to the removal from the distribution (main) of "software" that could be
>
> Please, drop the scare quotes on software.
No, I don't think so. There are people
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:39:35 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> >> (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader sha
It was a nice surprise finding several huge threads waiting for me after my
return from VAC. I had browsed the archives while at Steve McIntyre's annual
BBQ (thanks Steve, it was great!), but amazing how much mail had been
written since then.
Both personally and in my role as D-I release manager
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin Zobel-Helas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Moritz
> Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anibal Mo
Seconded.
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time
> "source" i
72 matches
Mail list logo
