On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:26:03PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > also: (NMU-)uploads to DELAYED/15 are great.
> Sorry, I do not feel my time well spent on just curing a symptom
> (unfixed RC bug) via NMU instead of addressing the underlying cause
> that the package is maintained by a single
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> [...] I could follow the normal NMU procedure but I do not consider
> this a sustainable solution.
[...]
> I did not uploaded my work but I would like to know what action is
> considered acceptable by the voters. I repeat that
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 02:59:34PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I would like to learn what options I have to realise paragraph
>Packaging standards
> of my platform.
I also think this feels a bit like abusing the election audience for a
topic which should be discussed on -devel outside
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote:
> Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002
> as a separate proposal.
>
> START OF PROPOSAL TEXT
>
> Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the
> Product Liability Directive
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:21:47PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at
> this point:
>
> - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
> Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act and the
> Product Liability
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:19:38PM +0100, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Correct. And I agree with that effect:
same here.
> The *one* negative impact I can see of this legislation is impact on small
> integrators that were used to being able to go to a
> client company, install a bunch of Ubuntu
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 07:53:22AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Can we have a clear statement of what "directly affects people"?
for those having lost people due to covid, hearing someone say
it's a hoax, is definitly painful. and this affects Debian directly:
so far we know about one
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
> page, inverting
resending publically, cause Kurt so very much deserves it!
thank you, Kurt!
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 01:17:24AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I did not have time to put the last option on the website, but it has
> enough seconds.
thanks!
(:*)
if there are specific problems, you should spell
hi,
I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like
proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image.
Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable
Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non-free
stuff else might limit distribution, eg to
Hi Russ,
thank you for working on option E! :)
that said, I think I want option F, where F is to E what B is to A,
(according how I read https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 now)
or IOW, option E where both types of installers (with and without
non-free firmwarez) are offered. (so a new
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 12:46:05PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
good thing that we have 5
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
>
> --
>
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document)
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no
> use for device firmware.
yes.
> Having a free-software-only installer is an easy
> way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
>
> =
>
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian
> *required* a non-DFSG image.
would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official
images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following
> lines.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So, I propose the following:
>
> =
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> media (installer images and live
On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 11:32:40AM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> We had a nice discussion on debian-private (the thread is named
> "Volatile assets, Debian money and SPI"), so I didn't feel I needed to
> have a long text explaining the rationale.
sigh. sad to see what happened to
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 07:43:06PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Text of GR
>
> Donations to the Debian project of assets other than the TO's currency
> of choice should be liquidated as soon as possible.
>
> End Text of GR
what does that even mean?
also, is
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 01:35:14PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Debian does not exist, legally :-)
and that's a feature, not a bug.
the CCC e.V. association OTOH was formed as a legal entity to protect
individuals.
it's possible to go both ways to achieve some of the same goals, but the
current
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think this thread has largely petered out, with many people having laid
> out the reasons why Debian taking a public position on this is not
> necessarily a good idea.
>
> But I don't think it should go unadddressed that it's
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 07:54:25AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does not. I
> guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
yes.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 09:41:49AM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> A common pattern to address this within the open source world is to
> create a non-profit legal entity, e.g. the FSF Foundation or the GNOME
> Foundation.
or SPI?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 11:42:03AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Just
> > voting on "I want my vote to be secret" without having any information
> > about the other properties is IMO completely silly and looses the point.
exactly.
> Sam's GR intentionally leaves the details open to the
Hi Bill,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:36:02PM +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 to people allowed to vote, whether
> they did not not).
>
> This would still allow voters to
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 my proposal already showed up on
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001#textc could I please ask you
(or
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 this
> time.
>
> 2) General resolutions that probe developpers opinions about non-technical
> issues
> outside the
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Is init systems GR a political GR?
yet there are people maintaining systemd and sysv in public.
so what's next, secret maintainers?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Reaffirm public voting
> > ==
> >
> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
>
Reaffirm public voting
==
Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting
system as it is.
Rationale:
The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:54:30PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if
> rejected I propose as its own option:
>
> modified english/devel/constitution.wml
> @@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>
>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:34:01AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> While I'm personally probably more worried about how calls for votes are
> disseminated than about how the voting mechanism itself works, the
> proposed change feels like a slippery slope towards the possibility that
> how voting
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 05:54:45PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> However that thread has 'secret ballots' in it's subject, so
> I still find it very relevant to the topic discussed there, so
> I'm slightly put off as being described asking offtopic stuff.
actually, not only in th
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Holger asked what I meant by secret.
> So I'm starting a separate thread.
I'm very fine with this, thank you.
> He asked that in a thread discussing stuff related to the project
> secretary, and I didn't think an answer belonged
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 02:30:53PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> My reason (and maybe Holger's too) is I'd say that there is no
> possibility of guaranteeing real permanent absolute secrecy in a vote
> that we can practically conduct over the Internet (at least, not one
> where the results are also
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 03:58:50PM +, Holger Levsen roughly wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 03:22:24PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > In my proposal all ballots would be secret, and the secretary would not
> > make a determination about that.
> what's the definition of '
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:59:35PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Personally, I think it's totally fine for decisions to be made by those
> of us that feel like we have an opinion, and for those that don't feel
> the need to vote to trust that the outcome from that will be reasonable.
>
> I don't
Hi Sam,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 03:22:24PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In my proposal all ballots would be secret, and the secretary would not
> make a determination about that.
how do you define 'secret' here?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
I second this.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Section 4.2.4
> -
>
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader." (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section
I second this.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Section A
> > > -
> > >
> > > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> > >
> > > A.1.1.
tl;dr: I second this.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Text of the GR
> ==
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> requires a 3:1 majority.
>
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> > specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?
> Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
> constitution that I an start from?
tl;dr: I second this.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Effect of the General Resolution
>
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Holger> all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it
> Holger> disrespectful to hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work.
> I'm frustrated reading this message because it sounds like you've jumped
> to the assumption that
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
> > now, or in a separate GR.
> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
[...]
> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 03:52:01PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> It was impromptu. The mail was intentional only in the sense that I
> hoped to find a topic to unite people. (Who likes slavery, anway?)
obviously everybody who's not instantly supporting renaming ftpmaster :)
I think you got a
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 03:28:07PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> [...] We effectively live
> under martial law
you mean, people in Debian die? I'm speechless and pretty unimpressed.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
hi,
i'm just following along, so please excuse my brief comments from the
sidelines...
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:15:18AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Wouter and I are going to disagree on this, but I actually think that
> the work I did during the latest systemd vote significantly helped move
>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 08:50:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] My goal is a proposal that anyone
> can support as long as they agree that:
>
> * We currently need an explicit and clearly-specified decision-making
> process for the Technical Committee and the Developers via General
>
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:57:27PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I've discussed with another Front Desk member about adding a question on
> our voting system in the nm templates.
>
> The idea being to make sure if people have questions, they get some
> answers, and otherwise relevant
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:55:48PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> That said, I think it's a *very* bad idea to change the vote procedure
> during an ongoing vote. Really *bad* idea and precedence. Double more
> so on a vote with shortened discussion period.
>
> (plus secret voti
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:12:26PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> On another list, there was discussion of the DPL encouraging the
> secretary to make the vote on the rms GR secret.
I'm not sure this is not leaking.
> I argued on another list that[...]
> Several people agreed with me, ande one
someone brought this up on IRC and I replied...
[23:01] < h01ger> he apologized in private, so i'm fine. mistakes happen all
the time.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 06:36:40PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I _am_ a member of the community team.
oh dear. [I'm not really able to express what I feel having a private
mail exposed by you. I hope for a honest mistake but even then I'd be
disappointed. I'll leave it at this.]
because
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:51:29PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> It seems highly likely that the message to which I'm replying was not
> sent or authorized by Enrico, and that its sender is trying to mislead
> Debian members by impersonating a prominent and respected developer.
IRC revealed that
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> There are non-DD people who maintain more packages and with higher total
> popcon than DDs, but aren't DD because didn't bother to jump through all the
> several hoops to become a DD.
>
> If you do not want DMs, make a proposal
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Just to be crystal clear if it wasn't already, this is all satire.
I think, aeh, hope, this is the funniest message today.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS:
>
> This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with
> our constitution, section 4.1.5.
>
> The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation
> are, and
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:51:59PM +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote:
> Choice X: Debian is unable to collaborate with FSF
>
> === Begin text ===
>
> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the following
> statement:
>
> Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:12:47PM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> Choice X:
>
> The Debian Project disapproves of recent and past actions taken by FSF. With
> regards to the latest action (re-acceptance of RMS to the board), it now
> chooses to cut ties with the foundation. The Debian Project
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
> > Begin text
> >
> > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> > following statement:
> >
> > *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
> >
> > We at Debian are profoundly
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
>
> If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely
> reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what
> you've said. They may decide that
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Even if we don't ultimately enforce it, being able to point people an
> officially recommended way to create packages in Debian would be a large
> step forward.
I'd expect this to be found in
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:40:55PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> This is a draft for a GR I would like to propose.
>
> Cancel this year's in-person Debian Developers Conference DebConf20
[...]
I'd second that, thanks. However, I would prefer if the DebConf organizers
cancel themselves. (And
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 09:50:41AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 23:06:55 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > another option would be 'unstable-proposed' (or whatever) where packages get
> > uploaded to, and which only gets moved to 'unstable' if they don't fai
hi,
another option would be 'unstable-proposed' (or whatever) where packages get
uploaded to, and which only gets moved to 'unstable' if they don't fail
piuparts,
autopkgtests (plain build tests) and so forth...
humans shouldn't look at stuff robots don't wanna see.
--
cheers,
Holger
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
>
> I hereby propose it and hope to have it on the ballot, given that
> there are enough seconds. I do *not* intend to replace the existing
> proposal
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 05:14:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I haven't had time to check that.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems,
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on
> *this* GR has started only a month ago.
>
> A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a
> ballot that is likely to be so contentions.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:40:57PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
> or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
> for a vote.
I (mostly) missed this part busy preparing an event...
> I agree that
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
>
> This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the
> Debian
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:47:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I was of course speaking metaphorically.
I understand, but I think it gets lost.
> I note that the very word
> "flamewar" which you use yourself has the same problem, at least
> etymologically.
haha, right, though just
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For those reasons, I am not sure if I will rank proposal D above FD. I
> > would very much prefer if it were compressed to a proposal of about the
> > same length as proposals B or C.
> I am sorry it is so long, indeed. It's just
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:18:37PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Ordering
>
> In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
> a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
>
> Proposal E / Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:11:48AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
[...]
> I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained sponsors.
just sigh.
Michael, I'm very very likely to sponsor anything you have written so
far. Please publish something so it's on the table and Sam cannot
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 07:15:17PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I've updated choice 1 and 5 like that.
thank you.
> Note that the text of choice 1, 2 and 3 still mention it:
> "our current position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
> systemd facilities."
how about replacing
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:54:40PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> > it being subject to a plebiscite?
> Thanks for raising this issue, and yes, please!
>
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:01:37AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd appreciate help in achieving these goals without undermining the
> text in debref.
Choice 1: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
->
Choice 1: Init diversity is Important
and
However, adding an init script to such a package
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:32:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> [ I read version of hartman1, which is based on my draft with s/must/should/]
>
> I do not think your option actually adds value, and not aware of
> somebody, who prefers your option to either Ian's or mine. On other
> hand our
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:37:59PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ah! Now I see that this is ment differently than it was proposed.
s#it#how I understood it#
--
cheers,
Holger
---
hol
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of
> > time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis.
> If we're going to expect there to be a transition period, I would prefer
> the time be defined,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 06:12:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and
> systemd Facilities"):
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > If we found that the six mont
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> If we found that the six month delay was repeatedly expiring with no
> serious attempts at non-systemd implementations of the new features, we
> could repeal this GR.
I'm pondering an amendment to copy this option but without the 6
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 05:31:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Issue 4. Hateful stuff on our lists etc.
>
> I have tried to capture what kinds of statements are the key problem
> here. I think we need to clearly tell our listmasters etc. what we
> expect, since enforcement action they take
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> I think there are only two differences: [...]
there's a third, the title.
> However, I think it may be useful to highlight in the vote text
> somewhere that systemd is actually not just the init system, but a
> modular collection
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:59:51PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Exactly this. I think I would definitely second a "focus on systemd"
> amendment which makes packages support systemd as a priority, but
> doesn't force out sysvinit or any other init system from the archive.
> I think there's a
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:51:03PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Choice 4: systemd without Diversity at all
as said before, I dislike the 'without diversity' framing and think it's
wrong, misleading and insulting. So I'd rather propose 'focus our efforts
on systemd' or 'systemd and
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 06:46:53PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think you may be mishearing what I'm proposing for a timeline.
[...]
thanks for clarifying, Sam, much appreciated.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> version 2330c05afa4
> Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity
[...]
looks generally like a fine option to me.
> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
[...]
as others have said,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> version 2330c05afa4
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5)
I fail to see why Constitution section 4.1 (5) is referred here. I'd
better understand section 4.1 (4) and would
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 09:57:36AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Yep, meetbot is there and publicity team will publish it to bits between
> 3-5 May and then again closer to the time again on micronews.
nice.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 04:09:12PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> As you probably know by now, Sam Hartman won the election and is now our
> new DPL (congratulations!).
congrats to Sam indeed. And thanks to all four who have been running!
> The first of these is re-booting the #debian-meeting
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 07:46:19AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Chris, thank you for your service! Two terms as DPL is a serious
> contribution
> and commitment to Debian, and I greatly appreciate it!
indeed. Chris, many thanks for all your DPL work in the last two years.
IMO you were truely
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:02:57AM +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> After waiting for two months we were informed by Mehdi that as
> first-step solution, he had asked this person to "stay away from
> Debconf17" (which had started being prepared almost a year before). This
> person supposedly agreed
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:52:51PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/03/2017 12:38, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:00:49AM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >> If you want to ban someone from a mailing list, you may contact
> >> list-masters.
> >
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:44:20AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
I think you are misremembering. "We dont hide problems and we promise that we
will operate our bug tracking system in public forever". And that's from the
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
