On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Robert Millan]
> > +
> > + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> > + Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
> > + none of the solutions that have been implemented (i
[Robert Millan]
> +
> + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> + Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
> + none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is
> considered
> + suitable by the maintainers, the pa
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I believe that the Debian project is way better off without this
General Resolution and with the rules and social contract as they are
to date. Even worse, I have t
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
>> ,[ Option 8 ]
>> |1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>> | community (Social Contract #4);
>> |
>> |2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>> | non-free bits in kerne
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:41:53AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> > moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> > the Release Team for "stable")
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:39:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> > for resolving DFSG violations:
>
> I would generally second this, but I wish w
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ,[ Option 7 ]
> |1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> |2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:22:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
>
> By who? There is no standard.
I don't think we need a standard to define thing
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
By who? There is no standard.
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
As you know, there are developers with
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I think that I would like to see an option to just release Lenny
with an exception on the ballot, without any changes to the foundation
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> the Release Team for "stable").
I don't understand this part. As a developer, how do I move a
pac
also sprach Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I would generally second this, but I wish we would separate the two
issues: first establish whether and how we want to
I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
for resolving DFSG violations:
Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~
The developers resolve that:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none
13 matches
Mail list logo
