The current Technical Committee is inactive; in the past two years they
have only made two rulings:
* 2004-06-24 Bug #254598: amd64 is a fine name for that architecture.
* 2004-06-05 Bug #164591, Bug #164889: md5sum
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Most of the current members of Project Scud appear to be employed by
companies whose primary business is Debian, or heavily depend on Debian
in their line of work:
Andreas Schuldei, employed by Skolelinux to work on Debian-edu; a
major Debian derivative.
Branden Robinson, employed by Progen
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 18:28 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040720 17:55]:
> > I think it is extremely unwise to set a precedent of overriding
> > technical decisions for essentially political reasons, and I do not
> > think that the release management team should
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for failure to perform
> the duties of $position", with the rationale citing "failure to perform
> action A, a duty of $position".
>
I believe anyone proposing, and possibly seconding such
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:12 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I really don't see this problem. I have absolutely no problem
> > communicating with James, in fact I'm doing so right now. Nothing to do
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 00:25 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal "Release sarge
> with amd64":
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves,
>
> That we will not include further architectures for the next Debian release
> (codenamed 'sarge
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:46 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
> > explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
> > decisions are still better than impl
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:09 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:46:06PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
> > > (read: an answer) and nothing
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > &g
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
> >
> > What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
> > inclusion?
>
> Refusal to act i
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:13 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=20
> > > include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work cur
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Debian project,
*snip*
> hereby resolves:
>
> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted
>at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.o
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 08:49, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
> and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
>
> Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the "non-free
> thing" out of the way
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 08:49, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
> and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
>
> Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the "non-free
> thing" out of the way
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 17:31, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > As a female hacker/geek/DD I find myself more and more concerned about
> > the gender ratio in the Debian Developer/User comunity. How can we say
> > make a "Universal" OS when it's do scarcely related to half the
> > population of the world...
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 17:31, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > As a female hacker/geek/DD I find myself more and more concerned about
> > the gender ratio in the Debian Developer/User comunity. How can we say
> > make a "Universal" OS when it's do scarcely related to half the
> > population of the world...
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:25, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Does Scott second both??
>
Yes. Seconding != Voting. I would like to see this issue voted upon,
and seconded what I felt were the two most reasonable options. I'll
vote for one of them.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had stran
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:25, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Does Scott second both??
>
Yes. Seconding != Voting. I would like to see this issue voted upon,
and seconded what I felt were the two most reasonable options. I'll
vote for one of them.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had stran
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Sof
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Sof
. Five would be needed to
> introduce an amendment.
>
Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10
22:01:
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
. Five would be needed to
> introduce an amendment.
>
Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10
22:01:
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kyle McMartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 23:18, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>In the past, we have conducted DPL debates on a special IRC
> channel set up for the purpose. Perhaps we should set up one this
> year as well. The time to do so would be after the rebuttals have
> been posted by the candida
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 23:18, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>In the past, we have conducted DPL debates on a special IRC
> channel set up for the purpose. Perhaps we should set up one this
> year as well. The time to do so would be after the rebuttals have
> been posted by the candida
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
>
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)
Oxford English Dictionary seems
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will c
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will c
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions
> > under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
>
> I confess I have to wonder how many pe
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:58:28PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Acroread can't be distributed - Adobe changed the licence conditions
> > under which their Acrobat reader could be distributed.
>
> I confess I have to wonder how many pe
30 matches
Mail list logo
