A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
challenge?
B. What should the Project Leader's role be when Debian comes into
significant and important conflict with other free software
organizations? (As
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
challenge?
B. What should the Project Leader's role be when Debian comes into
significant and important conflict with other free software
organizations? (As
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 19:20]:
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet
> this challenge?
I think I have covered this pretty thoroughly in the "My goals"
section of my p
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
> challenge?
We have quite a few challenges coming ahead. There is this SCO case: we
shouldn't laugh too hard at them, because that makes us look bad.
Th
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
> into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
> > into two, or duplicate myself.
>
> I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
You mean, you want it *back*?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
D
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:20:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year?
Ensuring that Debian is well-equipped to grow and enjoy further sucess.
> What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this challenge?
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
> maintainers for their packages.
I di
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on
* Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
> > packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the
> > project [1]) should not be treated the same as maintai
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
> > > packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:19:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented procedures
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
>> > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
>> > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
>> > packages, inform the keyring maintainer
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Those who did not retire properly, on the other
> > > hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
> > > understand their duties and procedures in Debian.
> Also note that people who *do* apply again for N
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:37:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > Those who did not retire properly, on the other
> > > > hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
> > > > understand their duties and pr
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute
> automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with
> cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040305 16:40]:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orph
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> > haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
> I consider this a good idea, yes. Thanks for that proposal.
Why do you think it's a good id
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>
> We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
> looked all over the constitution, and failed.
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
> > We have duties now? Can you point to
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > said:
>> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>> >We ha
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decisions" in my book.
N
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:09:40 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>>
>> We have duties now? Can you
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on
So my question about ousting developers has generated a very
interesting discussion about the issue of inactive people, and it has
been interesting to see the candidates distinguish themselves in their
understanding of the issues concerned.
The intention of my question was a little different, how
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as
>> opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result
>> WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart
>> when the condition that caused my resignation no longer
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:08:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decis
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:16:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The intention of my question was a little different, however, and I
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for whic
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> abuse of power on someone's part in the absense of such a process?
Hey, I'm asking the questions here! :)
S
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> The key issue here is that different people have different takes at
> different times on "actually fullfilling that responsibility".
True. But that's not the same as stating theat there is no responsibility
there in the first place.
I don't have hard-and-fast answers eit
On 09 Mar 2004 18:51:38 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process
>> now? If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious
>> threat of abuse of power on someon
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:43:21 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two
>>> (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different
>>> result WRT both to my standing in the community
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> > If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> > abuse of power on someone's p
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
> be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
> difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
> situation on its mer
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 22:16]:
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
> Project? Should we think about
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> to persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by
> threatening some sort of denigrated sta
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> > I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> > procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> > to persuade more people t
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> to treat them?
[...]
> ...bu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
> When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
> work they did in the past. [...]
> I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> > So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> > and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> > as maintainers who leav
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-19 18:19]:
> > > action ("We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
> > > emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.") do you
> >
> > I do that and I never said otherwise.
>
> Well, actually, you said:
>
> > I disa
* Anthony Towns [2004-03-13 14:46]:
> > retired can simply get added again, and that others have to do
> > more checks.
>
> So, is it possible for them to fail these checks? If one of them is:
>
> "Last time you were in Debian, you dropped out of contact for six
> months, your packages got NMU
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 19:20]:
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet
> this challenge?
I think I have covered this pretty thoroughly in the "My goals"
section of my p
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
> challenge?
We have quite a few challenges coming ahead. There is this SCO case: we
shouldn't laugh too hard at them, because that makes us look bad.
Th
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
> into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
> > into two, or duplicate myself.
>
> I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
You mean, you want it *back*?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
D
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:20:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
> coming year?
Ensuring that Debian is well-equipped to grow and enjoy further sucess.
> What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this challenge?
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
> maintainers for their packages.
I di
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on
* Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
> > packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the
> > project [1]) should not be treated
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
> > > packages, inform the keyring ma
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:19:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow do
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
>> > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
>> > duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
>> > packages, inform the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > Those who did not retire properly, on the other
> > > hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
> > > understand their duties and procedures in Debian.
> Also note that people who *do* apply again for N
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:37:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > Those who did not retire properly, on the other
> > > > hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
> > > > understand their duties and pr
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute
> automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with
> cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 16:40]:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-05 15:25]:
> > > > I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> > > > duties and don't follow documented pr
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> > haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
> I consider this a good idea, yes. Thanks for that proposal.
Why do you think it's a good id
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
> haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>
> We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
> looked all over the constitution, and failed.
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
> > We have duties now? Can you point to me wh
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>> >We have dut
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decisions" in my book.
N
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:09:40 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
>>
>> We have duties now? Can you
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on
So my question about ousting developers has generated a very
interesting discussion about the issue of inactive people, and it has
been interesting to see the candidates distinguish themselves in their
understanding of the issues concerned.
The intention of my question was a little different, how
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as
>> opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result
>> WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart
>> when the condition that caused my resignation no longer
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:08:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
> fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
> else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work against these rules
> and decis
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:16:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The intention of my question was a little different, however, and I
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for whic
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> abuse of power on someone's part in the absense of such a process?
Hey, I'm asking the questions here! :)
S
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> The key issue here is that different people have different takes at
> different times on "actually fullfilling that responsibility".
True. But that's not the same as stating theat there is no responsibility
there in the first place.
I don't have hard-and-fast answers eit
On 09 Mar 2004 18:51:38 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process
>> now? If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious
>> threat of abuse of power on someon
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:43:21 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two
>>> (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different
>>> result WRT both to my standing in the community
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> > If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> > abuse of power on someone's p
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
> be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
> difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
> situation on its mer
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 22:16]:
> wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
>
> Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
> inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
> Project? Should we think about
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> to persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by
> threatening some sort of denigrated sta
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 01:07]:
> > I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
> > procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
> > to persuade more people t
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> to treat them?
[...]
> ...bu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
> When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
> work they did in the past. [...]
> I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> > So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> > and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> > as maintainers who leav
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-19 18:19]:
> > > action ("We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
> > > emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.") do you
> >
> > I do that and I never said otherwise.
>
> Well, actually, you said:
>
> > I disa
* Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-13 14:46]:
> > retired can simply get added again, and that others have to do
> > more checks.
>
> So, is it possible for them to fail these checks? If one of them is:
>
> "Last time you were in Debian, you dropped out of contact for six
> months, yo
86 matches
Mail list logo
