Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not the mailing list policy part, it's the mandated delegation by
> the DPL. I suppose a GR can create a declassification team, but a GR
> cannot force the DPL to create one by delegation.
Well, a GR cannot force anybody to do anything, due to 2.1
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I read the constitution correctly, you cannot decide such a thing
> by GR.
Could you give us your reasoning why this isn't "Issuing, superseding
and withdrawing nontechnical policy documents and statements"? In my
opinion mailing list usage rules are
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to
> -private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept
> confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights.
The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to formalize what I've already said...
>
> I think this should be considered for future -private content even if
> the GR Proposal 2 (which I second) is rejected, considering one argument
> against it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns writes:
> Okay, incorporating Manoj's proposed changes, and some other ideas:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:08:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> One of the issues Debian often stands for is transparency and openness
>> -- indeed, the
Anthony Towns writes:
> resolves the complaints about NEW and hence I don't think that the NEW
> issue is an example of a communication problem at all.
This is getting slightly too detailed discussion for a DPL, but
anyway: what do you think the NEW issue is an example of?
--
* Sufficiently adv
Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, sorry. I think the ballout should have Reply-To in header, so I
> could just do the reply in my mailer.
But it does have a valid Reply-To.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Funny! The very mail you replied to contained a traditional (i. e.
> plain ASCII, no MIME) GPG signature which I could successfully verify
> using the Debian keyring.
Stupid of me. Of course Gnus "t" command does not show the full raw
message text, only al
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Funny! The very mail you replied to contained a traditional (i. e.
> plain ASCII, no MIME) GPG signature which I could successfully verify
> using the Debian keyring.
Stupid of me. Of course Gnus "t" command does not show the full raw
message text, only al
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd really like to give my vote (it's my first one as DD), but I am
> having technical problems. I sent several voting mails, all signed just
> as this one, but got only an error reply stating that:
Umm, your message to debian-vote was NOT signed. At leas
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd really like to give my vote (it's my first one as DD), but I am
> having technical problems. I sent several voting mails, all signed just
> as this one, but got only an error reply stating that:
Umm, your message to debian-vote was NOT signed. At leas
Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People who haven't already, could learn from reading:
> http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/index.html
> especially the section about the problems women face in approaching
> linux communities.
For those of us who read that H
Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People who haven't already, could learn from reading:
> http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/index.html
> especially the section about the problems women face in approaching
> linux communities.
For those of us who read that H
Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> website, possibly? I also think that all debian people could bear in
> mind that when a woman is interacting with you, it's likely that she's
> nervous about doing so. That's not your fault, but it's helpful if
> you are sensitive to the possibility,
Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> website, possibly? I also think that all debian people could bear in
> mind that when a woman is interacting with you, it's likely that she's
> nervous about doing so. That's not your fault, but it's helpful if
> you are sensitive to the possibility,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
> Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that
> you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial
> is not the same as being non-free.)
Blackdown
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> when you can spend all that on Debian?
What if those DDs _want_ to spend time working on non-free (and
contrib)? I for o
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
> Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that
> you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial
> is not the same as being non-free.)
Blackdown
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> when you can spend all that on Debian?
What if those DDs _want_ to spend time working on non-free (and
contrib)? I for o
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> helping to prevent the problems from being solved? Already, someone
> has mentioned some Java packages that I think could be in Debian but
> aren't. Is that because contrib is an easy enough home for them? If
Concerning base Java software (Ant, servlet containe
[I think it is best to involve the people who actually know about the
status and not take my word for it - I'm probably wrong.]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
> Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> helping to prevent the problems from being solved? Already, someone
> has mentioned some Java packages that I think could be in Debian but
> aren't. Is that because contrib is an easy enough home for them? If
Concerning base Java software (Ant, servlet containe
[I think it is best to involve the people who actually know about the
status and not take my word for it - I'm probably wrong.]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
> Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in
Anthony Towns writes:
> Well, the right answers aren't obvious to me; but if no one else cares,
> I'm all for dropping contrib too. That's certainly the least work.
At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
mean losing much of the current Java support. Ant, Eclipse, Jetty
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, the right answers aren't obvious to me; but if no one else cares,
> I'm all for dropping contrib too. That's certainly the least work.
At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
mean losing much of the current Java support.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in
> particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the
> social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are
> just modified in the presence of clause 5.
"Up
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in
> particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the
> social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are
> just modified in the presence of clause 5.
"Up
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> This resolution violates the social contract
> And that's simply false. Not that it matters (there is no rule that
> says GRs are required to comply with the social contract).
To state t
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> This resolution violates the social contract
> And that's simply false. Not that it matters (there is no rule that
> says GRs are required to comply with the social contract).
To state t
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
