On Wed, Oct 04, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution.
> As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we
> agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods
> to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1].
I confirm th
Hi,
I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution.
As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we
agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods
to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1].
Of course, the voting period in the WML file will be edited
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
> > minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a
> > vote at any time. As per that message, you and Lo
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
> minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a
> vote at any time. As per that message, you and Loic can also vary the
> voting period if you think that's a useful thing t
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if
> you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see
> the need for more discussion.
As per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project, the
minimum d
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification o
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the
>> firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your
>> t
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the
> firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your
> turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass
> politcking.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> > > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> > > in the second
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:38:45 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...]
>> > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
>> > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
>> > in t
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> > in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> > allowed by our Co
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
>
> One answer implied by your proposal: "Dunc-tank is
> grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it
> is a debia
Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I
said,
> > > if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be
> > > clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done
"against"
> > > Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especial
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about
> > this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about
> > employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the
> >
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Anthony Towns [wrote]:
> > A question that has been raised is whether the
> > organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> > the DPL is intimately involved. I
On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anthony Towns [wrote]:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether
Le lun 25 septembre 2006 09:42, Martin Schulze a écrit :
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre
> > > > > beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his
> > > > >
Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > > > either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tan
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about
> this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about
> employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the
> rest of
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 02:17:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> > compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> > no one can NMU the release. Theoretical
> "martin" == martin f krafft writes:
martin> What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch,
martin> please ffs.
Seconded.
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
>> involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
>> either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-t
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> > against some developers' opinions?
>
> If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's
> opini
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> > against some developers' opinions?
>
> Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers have a vote
> power over the actions of th
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do
>> something unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone
>> else trying to get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the
>> incr
[1/3]
Russ Allbery wrote at some point:
> including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether
> I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from
> my employer.
Agreed.
> The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As
Agr
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
>> Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
>
> There's some difference between "not liking aj" and "thinking aj is
> hurting the project to the point he should be recalled".
* Steve Langasek:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>> just let me rephrase it then.
>
>> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
>
> You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin,
> nor Andi nor I, nor any of
* Martin Schulze:
> It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly
> paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to.
But this is hardly a new thing. The difference is that this time,
there is a debate. Debian developers are currently not required to
disclose
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something
> unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to
> get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of
> telling one's employer no?
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Clint Adams wrote:
> If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly
> a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to
> remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of
> people who can revert this, and roughly a
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics.
>> As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me,
>> that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions f
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As
> a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that
> carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of
> the project. Shou
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]:
> > It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
> > indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
> > to.
>
> No, it's about a timely release and enabling two peopl
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
>>> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of
>>> 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said:
> > I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those
> > particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the
> > Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically
> > different? Or am I
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
>> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
>> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
>> cannot fix the problem directly
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
> cannot fix the problem directly.
>
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> against some developers' opinions?
Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers have a vote
power over the actions of the DPL?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Le samedi 23 septembre 2006 à 22:03 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit :
> Fortunately, nobody is talking about employing release managers.
Oh yes, we are.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian
also sprach Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.23.2156 +0200]:
> Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
> compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
> no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but
> we cannot
> I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those
> particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the
> Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically
> different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to
> t
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]:
> It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
> indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
> to.
No, it's about a timely release and enabling two people of core
importance to dedicate ev
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > > e
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> > two paragraphs:
>
> > A question that has been raised is whether the
> > organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Deb
John Goerzen wrote:
> * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
> development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
> I don't recall this coming with strings such as "can't be spent on
> programmer time". So there is even precedent for the project
> doing this s
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote:
>> The principle is simple:
>> - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
>Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
*heh*. I expect Erich's "they" referred to "du
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough
> No, everyone with special privileges or access is "magically different".
> That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth.
I just don't agree with this. What bright l
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> > of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> > answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote:
> The principle is simple:
> - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
> Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough
No, everyone with special privileges or access is "magically different".
That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth.
> people willing to do critical central work that one can rule out everyone
Aren't there?
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated
>> position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization
>> that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an
>> insane position to hold. I can only imag
Hello Pierre,
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
>
> 2. The DPL is deeply in a structure that has supposedly nothing to do
>with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of
>Debian approval.
>
> 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
As y
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> > for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> > officially request funding? NO.
>
> How
> I suppose the DPL has the authority to dismiss a release manager, but I
> don't think that makes it a delegated position after the fact.
> And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position
> in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds
> Debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by ou
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
> dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
As I stated elsewhere (and was ignored by AJ at least once), I am not
particularly troubled by paying the RMs, but - as I understand it
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> officially request funding? NO.
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
Le ven 22 septembre 2006 04:20, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming
> > from a delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an
> > organisation. It's just not compatible.
>
> Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a dele
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> just let me rephrase it then.
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin,
nor Andi nor I, nor any of the current release assistants
While the Constitution, as I read it, gives the developers the power to
recall the DPL even without reason if they wish, my very humble opinion
is that it should be done *only* when the DPL is guilty of something
*very* bad. Please explain why that would be the case.
If you feel that the DPL shoul
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
There's some difference between "not liking aj" and "thinking aj is
hurting the project to the point he should be recalled".
--
.''`. Josselin Moue
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:43:11PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple
> > question: "whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently
> > "outside" of Debian when the DPL is intimately invo
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple
> question: "whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently
> "outside" of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved."
> It obviously failed, many people got it wrong.
Obviously,
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> It has a better chance of success if it is proposed by someone who is
> seen as supporting this experiment. Given the heated reactions, I
> doubt that I am the adequate person.
Check <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which is a GPG signed
ballot proposal (as I un
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:45:59PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
> > The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
> > I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
>
> While I cou
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > either, so if Aj stops beeing invo
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact
> half solved.
Then shou
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 18:04, Graham Wilson a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works
> > publicily for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can
> > stay as DPL. If he prefers dunc-tank
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily
> for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL.
> If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate
> anymore, and e
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Amaya wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an
> > immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine
> > weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary
> > (Mano
Anthony Towns wrote:
> AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an
> immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine
> weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary
> (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where
> need
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 15:09 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> "I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ
> rather than me"? Come on.
Or maybe I'm withdrawing my support because I'm busy with my chainsaw.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to
> legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result.
"I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ
rather than me"? Come on.
--
Matthew Garrett | [
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 16:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 23:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> > > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > > would
Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 23:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> > But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> > would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> > in the second
Coin,
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1)
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
This is oversimplified. The structure offers itself to collect funds
which will be clearly directed towards releasing etch by subventionning
time of the RMs. It's not like the structure was collecting mon
This one time, at band camp, Denis Barbier said:
> [I am using a webmail from work, sorry for breaking the thread]
>
> [Loic Minier]
> > So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> > for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> > officially request
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:01:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.21.1206 +0200]:
> > Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so,
>
> I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when
> I was about re
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 03:30, John Goerzen a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to
> > everyone that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of
> > *beeing consistent* with the *consen
also sprach Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.21.1206 +0200]:
> Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so,
I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when
I was about ready to forget all the crap that went down with your
name on it, you manage
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> two paragraphs: [...]
> A question that has been raised is whether the
> organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> the DPL is intimat
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to
> The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project
> I will second it and withdraw my proposal.
While I could do this, our voting system makes it ok to have very
similar propositi
[I am using a webmail from work, sorry for breaking the thread]
[Loic Minier]
> So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
> for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
> officially request funding? NO.
>
> Instead, he did his best to take off hi
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:19:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [Sven Luther]
> > > > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
Loïc Minier wrote:
the first
sentence of the article is "The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is
experimenting with ..."
Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article?
It's not a random article, it's the link g
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:19:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Sven Luther]
> > > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> > > to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found tha
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> § 5.3. Procedure
> The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
> consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
> The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
> that we were ve
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 00:15 +0100, Stephen Gran a écrit :
> So, just to be clear, you want to punish a Debian developer for their
> activities outside of Debian?
Have you only *read* the rationale?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:15:06AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> So now that we're in crazy-as-batshit land, who do you want to bring up
> on charges next?
>
> I suggest an inquisition. Nobody ever expects that.
This has been coming over the last year, the signs where there, you just
failed to
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone
> that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing
> consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called "external"
> structure
Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: "Debian
> experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time". Even
> if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project
> is not affiliated to Debian, external pe
seconded
Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> two paragraphs:
>
> The first article[2] on the topic's already been
> published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
> Debian proj
This one time, at band camp, Denis Barbier said:
> Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> and as a result may badly harm the proje
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
> and as a result may badly
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:09:34PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Debian to decide.
> >
> > This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question.
>
> It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even goin
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> two paragraphs:
> A question that has been raised is whether the
> organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
> the DPL is intimately i
Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit :
> But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
> would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
> in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
> allowed by our Constituti
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want
> > to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that
> > normal behaviour, so what do you expect ?
>
> OH NO YOU DON'T.
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
