On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:21:47 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 17273 March 1977, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > Refusing to make a decision is a decision.
> We haven't refused to make one.
> We haven't been asked for one, even.
> > There is no point in service building a
> > Debian source package wher
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:28:33 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> The reason for asking the question in the first place is because the
> statements made by the candidates demand some level of quantification.
> What, precisely, is the problem with asking for a quantitative
> description of a quantifi
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 21:46:08 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Hello,
Hm?
| --
| GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini
|
| [-- End of signed data --]
|
| [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 4 00:09:30 2021) --]
| gpg: Signature made Sat Apr 3 21:46:04 2021 CEST
| gpg:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 23:20:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Leaving out the detail of Debian paying someone for work, this has one more
> thing that can backfire hard, as I just could witness in an (entirely
> unrelated) org: That those hired ones got more powerful than the actual
> leader. Simply
On Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:59:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
Thank you.
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
>
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking
> > of the options giv
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:40 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have written this mail To people who seconded Guillem's proposal and
> to some people from the thread. I would particularly like to hear
> your views.
>
> I am considering making a formal variant of Guillem's proposal, which,
> if Guille
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:46:27 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm thus proposing the following:
>
> X<
> Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates different
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
> C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
> if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a
> criticism of this proposal
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:01:37 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
> gregor> This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around
> gregor> NMUs which are prevalent in Debian for at least ten years
>
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
[…]
> Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around NMUs
which are prevalent in Debian for at least
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:27:56 +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> I'm therefore proposing the following General Resolution:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
>
> All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:24:52 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
> > issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
> > this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on
> > the jessie releas
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:23:48 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote
> on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate
> one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public
> feedback welcome
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:42:47 +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it
> doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks
> about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact
> as human
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:02:08 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/03/13 at 16:22 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Are we strict enough with our existing contributors? When we're trying
> > to work together as best we can to make the Universal Operating System
> > happen, what could/should we do wi
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:15:58 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Even the suggestion of a testing removal can evoke negative feelings
> for those affected (sometimes from those on the sidelines too). A
> recent example:
> http://bugs.debian.org/703258
There seems to be a misunderstanding; at least m
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:55:42 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> "schools/seminars"
> --
> Ubuntu does https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek - a set of
> seminars on IRC to teach Ubuntu development. I'm not sure of how useful
> that is (I've never attended it) and if we should do
On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:32:41 +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE
>
> The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
>
> No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
> welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyon
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:17:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Before pushing it forward as an amendment, I'd like to hear opinions about
> this: we have had problems with GRs proposing orthogonal options in the past.
> This amendment proposal discusses two things that are orthogonal (giving full
> u
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:08:00 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Still, in your question you're hinting at some earlier mentoring, and I
> believe that should happen in teams. [..]
> That is why I like the http://www.debian.org/Teams/ page. Ideally, that
> can become the welcome place for new cont
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:27:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Salut Charles,
> Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild
> our
^^
> system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
> number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x > 1). I
> think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
> sink for the project
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:44:11 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
I'm sorry to hear about this decision.
Although I don't agree with some of your arguments around the current
GR, I have respect for you and your work, and I trust you
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:45:54 -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> > vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> > the vote, but that w
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
> including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
Thanks for listing the consequences of the different choices.
In order to make it eas
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:54:24 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I don't see a contradiction here; on the contrary I can imagine that
> > DMs take some work off the shoulders of DDs in teams.
> In teams, commit rights to the repository are enough for that. So, what
> is the point?
(Again, from my exp
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:27:12 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I don't see a contradiction here; on the contrary I can imagine that
> > DMs take some work off the shoulders of DDs in teams.
> I fail to see how. More pet packages mean more work
I was not thinking about those "pet packages" but a
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:40:29 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> This is exactly what I don't like in the proposal. I think I already
> said that, but DM is about pet packages, while Debian as a whole is
> advocating Team work, Alioth, and co-maintenance. Something here feels
> wrong and fishy.
I d
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:03:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> and once Anthony has
> fixed the proposal so that a DM doesn't automatically get upload rights
> on all packages where he's currently listed as Maintainer/Uploader (via
> the mandatory "DM-Upload: yes" field that only a DD can add),
I t
[cc and reply-to/m-f-t [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:32:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are other things
> that *are* signs of fundamental deficiencies in the project,
Would you mind to elaborate on this point, I'm really interested in
your opinion.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`.
31 matches
Mail list logo
