> I also think that we need to review the NEW uploads. But this is not what I
> discuss here. I propose to let all DDs look what is in the NEW queue. (This
> would of course help to review the NEW uploads).
If there is ever any legal "fun" around this, it is a *HUGE* difference
if you can say "On
Le Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:53:47AM -0400, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
>
> It doesn't take long processing NEW to realize that many DDs cannot be
> trusted to make sure that all of the code they are uploading is legally
> redistributable.
I also think that we need to review the NEW uploads. But this i
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:45:45PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If it is not an export or a license violation that a member of the FTP team
> inspects a package, then I do not think it is for any other member of the
> project. I am not proposing to give a read access to the NEW queue for any
> ot
Le Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
>
> The issue I was talking about had nothing to do with software crossing
> state lines. It had to do with violating license agreements. I'm not
> familiar with any procedures we must do before exporting software that
> you are a
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:58:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> you give three interesting examples on how the FTP team is isolating itself.
>
>
> 1) By a combination of (self-appointed?) authority and technical design, the
> package section splitting becomes a private tool of the
Le Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
>
> You do get to choose the priority and section which your packages belong
> to, though the ftp team can override your choice. When we do override
> your choice, you get an email inviting discussion about it. I can't
> think of
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:46:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Clint,
>
> I also think that there are many restricted operations that should be opened.
> Write access to our website, chosing the priority and section of our pacakges,
> triggering bin-NMUs, designating new members, inspectin
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:42:22PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> whoever is delegated by the DPL to do this) goes around imposing
> members to teams, or switching members willy-nilly, it would
> definitely lead to a lot of frustration and resignations.
I think that's probably fine. ftpmaste
Clint Adams writes:
> Well, in the paid employment part of my life, I have been put in
> positions where I have needed to work with people I disliked, and it is
> not considered professional to refuse on those grounds. In Debian I
> receive bug reports from people I might dislike, but I treat th
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> Well, in the paid employment part of my life, I have been put in
> positions where I have needed to work with people I disliked, and
> it is not considered professional to refuse on those grounds.
Indeed, I guess most of us have gone through
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 01:51:45PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> I'd very much like to know how _you_ think that it should be done,
> because even if I don't like the "We have to like you in order for you
> to work with us" clause, I don't think it would be productive if the
> DPL, or someone
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> 5) Is there any part of Debian that should be restricted
> to a small subset of developers, and if so why?
So, I've taken quite a while to ponder about these questions,
particularly this last one. Several people have already replied wit
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [100319 22:57]:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Is there any legitimate reason that wanna-build access should be
> > > restricted to any group smaller than
Le Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 05:59:35PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm a écrit :
>
> I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. Are you saying that you will
> -- if elected DPL -- suggest the current members of the technical comittee
> to step back just for the sake of having new people in their seats?
Le S
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Disclaimer: I don't know the technical setup of www.d.o, so I don't
> know if there is a different between commit time and publish time.
> Until I fix this ignorance of mine, that would surely block me from
> committing, for instance :-) ]
No, there is not. The websit
Charles Plessy writes:
> Lastly, I think that we need some referees for our technical
> disagreements, and the technical comittee fits well that role. If I am
> elected DPL, I will ping its members and ask them if they would like to
> leave their seat to fresh persons.
I'm a little bit confused
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> I had meant to send three sets of questions on Thursday morning, but
> things kept coming up, so I will send an unfinished one now.
Well, thanks anyhow, this is a heck of a question! I start answering by
exposing what I think should b
Hi Charles,
Am Sa, 20.03.2010, 16:46, schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Lastly, I think that we need some referees for our technical
> disagreements, and the technical comittee fits well that role. If I am
> elected DPL, I will ping its members and ask them if they would like to
> leave their seat to fres
Le Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> I had meant to send three sets of questions on Thursday morning,
> but things kept coming up, so I will send an unfinished one now.
>
> 1) 114 people have commit access to webwml.
> 2) wanna-build access is restricted
> 3) An ftpmas
On Saturday 20 March 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It is of course reasonable to require that people familiarize themselves
> with how things are set up before being given access. But beyond that,
> if they are Debian Developers, getting access to the webwml repository
> is a no-brainer, AIUI.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:29:30PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> 1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
> >> control makes it easy to undo changes, minimizing risk and
> >> impact, are there any legitimate reasons why this repository
> >> should be r
On 19/03/10 at 22:57 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Is there any legitimate reason that wanna-build access should be
> > > restricted to any group smaller than th
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> 1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
>> control makes it easy to undo changes, minimizing risk and
>> impact, are there any legitimate reasons why this repository
>> should be restricted to a group any smaller than the whole of
>> gid 800?
>
> N
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Is there any legitimate reason that wanna-build access should be
> > restricted to any group smaller than the entirety of gid 800
> > membership?
>
> There was.
[...s
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> I had meant to send three sets of questions on Thursday morning,
> but things kept coming up, so I will send an unfinished one now.
>
> 1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
> control makes it easy to undo cha
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Clint Adams wrote:
> 4) The tech-ctte has the power to appoint its own members. I do not
> know why they should be allowed to self-manage when their judgment
> on the issues raised to them has often been less-than-stellar. [...]
If there are decisions which are less-than-stell
I had meant to send three sets of questions on Thursday morning,
but things kept coming up, so I will send an unfinished one now.
1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
control makes it easy to undo changes, minimizing risk and
impact, are there any legitimate reasons why
27 matches
Mail list logo
