Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably
> > a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes,
> > but there's always something not covered there. Using a
> > smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct
> > FAQs
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:10 10:33 +]:=20
> > Some of my suggestions have been accepted previously. Damned
> > if I can find the right bug tracker entries for them, though.
> Yeah, a bug tracker might be nice
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go back to that discussion, read the full many 100 thread there, and you will
> see that the discussion which was throwed at me didn't even bother to : [...]
Now, most of what you were expecting was unstated and then
you got upset by the difference between
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone made me believe that debian-legal had reached consensus on this matter
> and that ocaml should be removed from main. [...]
If you're that gullible, will you buy my Eiffel Tower, please?
Seriously, maybe you got the wrong impression from misreportin
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:36:49AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If it's fair to call one-sided example genders on www.debian as
> > a bug, let's call it a bug where it happens across all debian.
> That's a fair call
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and the early reaction of debian-legal when i first joined this disastrous
> topic was not one to make debian-legal shine [...]
Probably not. The first reaction of Sven Luther wasn't good either.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00363.html
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, personally, I really don't see the relevance in the context of
> this web page. If you're tired, and want to just get stuff done, don't
> you have your own web pages? [...]
A variation on the "you can discriminate in your own space" suggestion.
Not a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:46:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Why do you think that you would get no warning? It's not like
> Because the first mention i got of the problem was when some debian-legal
> following idiot se
Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> When I first became a developer, I found debian-devel frightening,
> hostile and very intimidating, I must admit this was not so because of
> gender issues. [...]
In fact, I suspect the correlation is not very strong.
> [...] more of a personal issue "ok,
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can get another ticket for the Meme Lottery if you tell us what we
I think this above is inappropriate "content".
> (and/or the new DPL) should do instead, given that (a) inappropriate
> "content" is a problem on many Debian lists, and (b) previou
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.03.0752 +0100]:
> > I don't know, maybe email debate is better, it allows for more in depth
> > discussion.
> ... and massive volumes of text, which noone with a real life can
> read, think about, and
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, but I see no point in discussing licensing issues with a dozen of
> people who keep saying that they reached consensus a couple of years
> ago and I should shut up, so I tend to avoid most threads.
Frankly, I remember more posts of short contradictions
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was imagining a situation where I needed, say, to have a hopelessly
> buggy package of mine removed from testing, but got told by the
> ftpmaster team that they needed to have the removal confirmed by my
> team leader. It would not make sense for the f
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on -vote:
> > This is partly a problem with debian-legal documentation, but some
> > of the stuff you do is listed as "don't do this" in the list code of
> > conduct.
>
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though I am interested in being involved in debian-legal, I am turned
> off by Andrew Suffield's description of anyone with a view other than
> his own as an "anti-freedom advocate".
I was uncomfortable with that, but it's not clear that he was
describi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He, i can inform you that in our "small team" as Andreas would say, for which
> i came to post 300+ mails to -legal in order to not get our 50+ packages moved
> to non-free without warning over a couple of dissident or other bogus tests,
> there is a big con
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:31:49PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] I hope that the link was there originally and
> > has just been lost because of the sort of habit and familiarity
> > that made you name the wrong test above.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:46:43PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I understood it as similar to what I call the "magnificent seven"
> > models being advocated by consensus-based grassroots groups
> > recently.
> It&#x
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, and the obituaries are a discrimination on the basis of death.
Not a type of descrimination that I object to, as I could easily
die if I wanted to. ($DEITY knows, I spend enough time keeping alive.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And most DDs have also stopped paying any attention to -legal, so ...
I challenge you to provide data, but it's actually irrelevant,
as long as we assist those who want our assistence. debian-legal
is mostly welcoming and willing to help with debian package
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are invited to clarify on the "small teams" section of your
> platform. [...]
I understood it as similar to what I call the "magnificent seven"
models being advocated by consensus-based grassroots groups
recently. I don't know whether I was right an
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] DFSG-revisionists are the people who in
> the last year invented things like the "dissident test" which are not
> derived from the DFSG and pretend to use them as a measure of software
> freeness for Debian. [...]
I'm pretty sure that the dissident t
Anthony Towns wrote: [...]
> Well, here's a simple train of thought:
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
I can't see why one would make the jump from 1 to 2 withou
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco subscribes to the notion that the DFSG was originally only meant
> to apply to ELF binaries, and anything else is de jure free. Anybody
> who says different, including anybody who was around at the time, can
> be dismissed as a 'revisionist'.
Marc
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> They're trying to find out why women aren't as actively involved in
> Debian as are men, so that they can remedy any problems, should those
> arise.
I support them doing that.
> In doing so, it isn't unreasonable to see what women currently
> inv
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:09:26AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arguing in favour of so-called "positive discrimination" is just
> > another case of ignoring present crimes by past-persecuted people.
> > We have to lear
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism.
> i.e., you favour the law of the jungle. Which, may I say, has a fine
> history of maintaining artificial imbalances caused by past injustices.
No, I favour stopping discrimination
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You haven't said anything sexist about it, except that it has a clear
> purpose.
I have, IMO. I consider discrimination on the basis of sex to be sexism.
I've also described an incident of unchallenged racism on the
debian-women list. While I believ
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Some restrictions on topic are reasonable, some are not.
[...]
> Maybe you should ask for debian-misogynists or something.
I am not a misogynist. I believe sexism cannot cure sexism and I
consider the current setup of debian-women sexist beyond
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological
> >> reasons.
> >I think you'll find many DDs aren't subscribed
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But one example *cannot* demonstrate your point. [...]
I was referring to DWN being one example of communication in debian.
> Nor, for that matter, does a Message-ID prove anything. You can't say
> or remember what's in that message, can you?
Y
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again, your complaint is about a topic restriction, not a
> restriction on who is allowed to address that topic.
Cool, so declaring all discussions and collaboration involving
women "off-topic" for debian-www would be fine with you?
--
To UN
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to prove there is something nefarious going on, you must
> *give the evidence*. The burden of proof is on you.
I know. I'll prove it to people who will actually fix it. It will
not help to publish more info here and will harm helpful p
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to just chill out on the chicks? [...]
It's just an example of some general problems (and not one I raised).
> Would you have a problem with blind Debianers creating such a list? Nazis or
> terrorists sure, but ladies!?! [...]
For at le
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their
> > work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs,
> > probably both for good root reasons IMO
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A page about people that only admits contributions from women.
> What's the URL, please?
http://women.alioth.debian.org/profiles/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you cannot substantiate them publicly, then they are nothing more
> than pissing in the wind.
Get Message-Id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
that was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it matters that much to you. I
don't have a copy here and I've not checked my
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being
> > kissed or kicked.
> If we are talking about the same publication, then neither. For all
> the time I have r
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The list shows everybody who has more than 1000 points. You are not
> among them (except if my DWN-parsing script is broken), but MJ himself
> currently has 2661 points and a ranking of #30.
Interesting, but missing any measure of whether I'm being
kiss
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:25:49AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Like those are the only two options, the two extremes. It
> When you're trying to solve the problem of "ensure that someone you may not
> know exists gets your an
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice that there is already an effort on this subject going on in
> debian-esperanto, and you would have known about it if you had been subscribed
> to this list, i guess you are more than welcome to join that effort.
Notice that I am a (minor) part in tha
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sadly not directly. The public stuff is too vague and
> > limited to the level of "Who cares?" about someone linking
> > krooger's message to him being a whit
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is a "women-only" web page?
A page about people that only admits contributions from women.
> Where is the list charter for debian-women "women-only"?
Being about or by women are the only topicality criteria for debian-women,
last I saw.
--
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe. Call it revenge if you want, but please consider whether
> > there's truth behind them or how one can tell.
> Your accusations are, as far as I can tell, entirely fa
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think it's far more important for people working on Debian to focus
> their attention on improving our operating system; if "Mark J Ray" is a
> correct variant of your name, no matter how bastardised, I don't think
> it's worth wo
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, if someone thinks something should be in DWN, sending a mail
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] really helps.
It helps to get a reply a month later with inaccurate inflated rewrites.
> At least it helped for me everytime I wanted to have something covered.
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can list all the mailing lists and fora you read, but the point is that
> unless you watch the entire world's open communications, you will miss
> announcements. It's a fact of life. The choices for senders are,
> basically, to either have a single
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:04 14:07 +]:=20
> > If debian-women are so good at communicating, why don't I see it?=20
> Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological
> reasons.
I t
Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are four points. Of those, three are being done already, namely
^^
> the first [1],[2] third [3][4][5] and fourth [6]. There are many other
> such references on the Debian Women webpages and ma
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been labelled because I fit a similar description to others,
> > so why not label debian nazi if there is a nazi DD? I think that
> > shows the absurdity of some debian-
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't find "the new mentoring programme" either. I remember being
> > told some time ago that a mentor course would be announced,
> > but now you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it.
> Oh my god,
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:08, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > In order to try to keep the size of the discussion still consumeable by
> > as much people as possible,
> Do you think it'd be feasible[1] to put essential questions and answers (like
> two
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark, [...]
That reminds me of one thing that has annoyed me during tbm's
leadership (sorry tbm! You have done most things well):
it has been very difficult to correct the bastard form o
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, it doesn't work that way. The translators come to the d-i and
> translation team and ask what they can do to help get it translated.
I think this is tied up with the change of installer. It makes
it a bit tricky to figure out who could have done anyth
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, in which case I salute the innovative way in which you boldly post
> to -vote on topics bearing increasingly little resemblance to the DPL
> election.
Sorry if I'm communicating it badly, but I think the
debian-women problem includes all the hot topics o
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the relatively short period of time that debian-women has existed,
> it's unsurprising that most of their work is still located on their own
> site rather than integrated into the main suite of pages. It's hardly a
> problem that's limited to debia
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Neither feels that the groups it reports on are their main
> > audience.
> As far as I can see, the main audience of DWN is Debian developers,
> package maintainers, and oth
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > would any of you have answered a Request For Comments or Call for
> > Volunteers from krooger, honestly?
> Which, if you are correct, makes it even less appropriate for krooger to
> use them in his DPL platform.
Indeed. I'm unsure whether krooger is sincer
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll leave the rest of your bile to someone else, but for the record, as
> the founder of DWN, I resent the implication that the newsleatter is
> modeled on a US tabloid, which I have never read (except for headlines
> about two-headed cows while standing in l
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There were multiple announcemnts and as much time as possible before
> closing the set of supported languages for sarge d-i.
Where were these announcements? Sorry, I had asked
previously and was told there has been no official
announcement, which I had no rea
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:20:40PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest
> > > > journey begins without that single step!
> > > Giving someone a
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for secrecy, I find your objections interesting. The debian-women
> project has been making great efforts to actively improve transparency
> of processes and access to relevant documentation throughout debian.
They have? I thought they just posted "bugfi
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you saw no need to consult the people you named prior to including them
> in a list of "appointees" as to whether they would be willing to be a part
> of your little sham committee.
So a committee of those people would be nothing other than a sham?
O
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >Why should the sex imbalance be seen as any more urgent than race,
> >culture or any of the other tons of ways debian is demographically
> >different?
> Debian already has a debian-women mailing list for d
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were
> consulted about this plan; we also think these issues are deeper than can be
> fixed with a three month analysis. Furthermore, we do not believe this to
> be a good-faith effort to address
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:29:41AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> >>You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to
> >>email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. [...]
> > Ok, i have one question.
> Can we keep
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Q: In June of 2004 it became apparent that SPI had been having deep set
> responsibilities executing its chartered task. [...]
JOOI, is "deep set responsibilities" new business-speak for problems?
As past -vote readers know, I agree with Ean that
Lucas Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I second the dead camel and the entire population of Swaziland, not the=20
> cheddar cheese. Unless 100 developers wish the cheddar cheese to run, of =
> course.
Won't that happen anyway if they leave it out in the sun?
I second the entire population of Swa
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be happy to do that, if there is some wider consensus (on
> -project perhaps?) that this would be desired, as opposed to unwelcome
> noise.
I think it would be a good idea to announce it whenever there's a
debian-related matter coming up, or at lea
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a service to mailservers everywhere I'll put up a permanent page outlining
> my complaints:
> http://www.eanschuessler.com/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=SPIAccounting
Can you add references for some of the claims? It's hard for anyone
to take that page and run
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby nominate Angus 'gus' Lees as Debian Project Leader (DPL).
http://people.debian.org/~gus/ is less than stunning. Someone
might want to look at that.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> As I've said, I can be combative, irrational and mean tempered. At the same
> time, I was able to get a few years of accounting problems cleared up in a
> week or two. [...]
Huh? If you cleared up the accounting problems, why did you come into
th
> Please take this off debian-vote. [...]
Please stop cc'ing me on list, at least. I read debian-vote.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
> I do e-mail spi-general with the info about 2 weeks in advance.
Why would I look for announcements on the
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ean is right that Debian needs to be more active with SPI. I wish many
> more Debian developers were actively watching SPI.
It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely.
For example, I just looked for the next meeting date. I looke
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Ultimately the question still stands, have
> operations been repaired?
I doubt anyone would take a "yes" here now, quite rightly. We
need to watch and decide for ourselves.
> Would it have been better to let me execute a rapid
> and forceful reo
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] On occasion, nastiness can be very efficient no matter
> how much you wish it weren't so. [...]
In a dozen years, I've not been part of a volunteer project where
nastiness brought better results. Results are needed, but SPI's
not a for-profit comp
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 21 February 2005 1:38 pm, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > In general, status reports seem few and far between in the
> > minutes. Aren't they meant to be part of the normal order of
> > business under the SPI by-law
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The obfuscation continues! Let's not get caught up in the actual problems I'm
> trying to put on the table. Let's stay focused on the fact that discussing
> mistakes and the efforts to correct them makes you persona non grata.
When you were appointed P
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I think it really embodies the professional tone and spirit that
> Branden brings to all of his endeavors and may help you when you are making
> your DPL decision.
Are you still bitter that we don't love you after you made a
meal of cleaning up a
On 2004-07-20 18:29:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What's with the absurd pseudo-EU-government formatting? You realise
it's normally used to make documents harder to read, and thereby
discourage participation?
I believe it's normally used to cram as much as possible within th
On 2004-07-17 18:37:17 +0100 David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:26:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Is queue-jumping desirable? [...]
Yes, it's definitely desirable. For instance, a person maintaining an
important library that a lot of other packages depend
On 2004-07-18 09:41:28 +0100 "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This is the kind of thing you need in any GR long before I am willing
to agree to it.
You have lept to the GR strategy, failing to realize that the GR
strategy should *presume* that you have done this work.
This is my
On 2004-07-16 02:35:50 +0100 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Feel free to subscribe to -newmaint (it's quite low-traffic) and
comment
on the AM reports of those applicants if you think they are not ready.
The full AM reports are not posted to -newmaint, if I recall
correctly, so it's har
On 2004-07-15 22:09:35 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Really nice, but I already knew that. Now can you tell me what
prevents FIFO
processing?
Doing it in FIFO would mean the DAM would not be allowed to start
processi
On 2004-07-14 23:15:16 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James stated outright in the NM BOF at DebConf that he didn't delay
people for asking about their progress. [...]
Does he (or anyone) answer the queries?
Was the NM BOF documented, or is this info only known to those who
were in
On 2004-07-14 19:42:22 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that
ftpmaster
can sometimes be rea
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm glad you have made it abundantly clear that ftpmaster had no
intention to communicate about the amd64 issue at all.
Alternatively, ftpmaster are not announcing vapour. Maybe you'd like
to know what they are up to, but I'm not
On 2004-07-14 13:45:35 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, if I would be cited with a private off-hand remark, I definitly
would stop to make private off-hand remarks to the person in question.
Yes, understandable. I think this might be an example of what inspired
James Troup to s
On 2004-07-14 12:22:02 +0100 Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm glad you said 'trapped' because that's exactly what you did.
That, and
breaking the confidence of a private off-hand remark [...]
Besides the unethical behaviour of not stating he would report and
attribute, was the
On 2004-07-13 22:48:28 +0100 Frank Pennycook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue?
Then someone should explain why it is non-technical. Technical policy
is not normally decided by GR.
Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a demo
On 2004-07-13 18:27:58 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Several of the points in the GR fall back to the ftpmaster never
communicates and thus there are no emails to quote. [...]
You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to
a lists.debian.org list or similar,
On 2004-07-13 17:10:38 +0100 Josselin Mouette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] However, I want to make sure amd64 won't be
dropped because of some random developer at a critical position not
agreeing with that.
I don't think you can really overrule a future decision, however much
you want to. It
On 2004-07-13 16:18:34 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't
think
he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail
sent to
them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
OK, so the GR is seeking to ov
On 2004-07-13 15:03:47 +0100 Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
Perhaps you could summarise what delegate's decision this GR is trying
to overturn, for those of us only seeing this on -vote?
--
MJR/slefMy O
On 2004-07-13 14:15:30 +0100 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of
your discussions with the release manager, release assistants,
ftpmasters and
technical committee directly.
In particular, what decision is this proposal trying to o
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rationale:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
assistants,
On 2004-06-25 06:15:22 +0100 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
That's just so totally American.
Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.
Actually, it looks just plain offensive from here "it's wrong, and
typic
On 2004-06-24 08:31:49 +0100 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, [...]
Consequently, supporters of the last GR have been accused of
"gerrymandering" because the vote ended up in "spring break" for some
people.
I would like to note in
On 2004-06-23 17:34:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] There was also nobody who pointed
me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original
SC.
Sue me, English isn't my native language. [...]
Personally, I apologise for the communications failures. Please h
301 - 400 of 755 matches
Mail list logo
