On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 13:18:06 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I already started yesterday to try to structure and organize my
> thoughts on how I'd express this. I do have today packed until later
> this evening, so I think it's unrealisting that I can propose anything
> today. I hope to have
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> > * c the HTML from proposal D
> > * Adding the new title
> > *
Hi,
On 2019/12/05 13:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
>> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
>> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
>> website ver
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> * c the HTML from proposal D
> * Adding the new title
> * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c the text
> from G, and numbering the paragraphs as clauses
> * Renumbering
Hello,
Since the secretary has indicated he is going to put this on the ballot,
I too second it.
On Thu 05 Dec 2019 at 11:59AM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
>
> I hereby propose it and hope to have it on the ballot, given that
> there are enough seconds. I do *not* intend to replace the existing
> proposal
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Since I didn't see anybody complain about this, I will put it on
> the ballot. I will try to update the website and ballot later this
> evening.
Thanks. I think G+D comes between D an
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> > could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> > start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to
Ian Jackson writes:
> Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to interpret Sam's
> mail as taking those steps ?
For the record, I also
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
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That is an unfortunate effect, yes. I mean, my opinion is (as you
> > know) that G _is_ missing something. But it would be much better i
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
&g
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> If there is a consensus that new options can still be added, I
> will consider adding them. As long as I don't sent out the call
> for votes, things can be changed. But it currently seems unlikely to
>
Jonathan Carter writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > 7. Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
> >exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I hav
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
>
> Hmm, I've not checked the actual differences between the comb
Hi,
On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
>and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
>and integrates different software that provides similar
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 at 17:14:38 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
>
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:14:38 +
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> [...]
>
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> websi
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 05:14:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I haven't had time to check that.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems,
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
As I mentioned in my “Reframing”
Quoting Ian Jackson (2019-12-04 18:14:38)
> Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> > it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> > Dmi
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> 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
Le 04/12/2019 à 22:43, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> 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
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> 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
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 given my ambivalence.
>
> To make
On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> 7. Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
>exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
>and/or will not accept, an init script.
I believe that the combination is better than the original
Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
>
&
Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
>
&
gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> I found and find Guillem's text very appealing; and I also can see
> that people who are involved in the issue on the technical or the
> policy side would like to have concrete answers to the pending
> questions and guidance for moving forward. For the
31 matches
Mail list logo
