On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 2:45:18 PM EST Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Release Team member hat on, but not speaking on behalf of the team. I
> haven't consulted anybody on the idea I mention below.
>
> On 08-02-2022 14:59, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > If people want licensing and copyright is
Hi,
Release Team member hat on, but not speaking on behalf of the team. I
haven't consulted anybody on the idea I mention below.
On 08-02-2022 14:59, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If people want licensing and copyright issues to be treated like other RC
bugs, I think the first step is to treat them
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:23:36 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 09:39:09AM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> > Various people have different reactions to and opinions about the
> > necessity of this review, which I understand and which is great for
> > broadening the discussi
Am Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 09:39:09AM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>
> Various people have different reactions to and opinions about the
> necessity of this review, which I understand and which is great for
> broadening the discussion. But I feel like we're starting to lose track
> of my original poi
Hello,
On Fri 04 Feb 2022 at 11:50PM +01, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2022-02-04 18:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In other words, this thread is once again drifting into a discussion of
>> how to do copyright review *better*, when my original point is that we
>> should seriously consider not doing
On Fri, Feb 04 2022, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott correctly points out that there are a ton of copyright bugs in
> Debian *anyway*, despite NEW review. He sees this as a reason for not
> relaxing our review standards. I see it as the exact opposite: evidence
> that our current review standards ar
On 2022-02-05 16:07, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Just because someone else can't be bothered to do licence review checking
> doesn't mean that Debian shouldn't.
I wasn't advocating against license review checking in general, though.
We expect and trust all contributors to do that.
The question as
Le samedi 05 février 2022 à 15:07 +, Andrew M.A. Cater a écrit :
> There's a huge amount of software that's undistributable: Debian's
> good faith attempt to review this is one of the crucial arguments I
> have with $DAYJOB about the benefits of a curated distribution,
> however fallible we may
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 11:50:20PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2022-02-04 18:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > In other words, this thread is once again drifting into a discussion of
> > how to do copyright review *better*, when my original point is that we
> > should seriously consider not doin
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Friday, February 4, 2022 6:24:56 PM EST Philip Hands wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman writes:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Currently the only answer is join the FTP Team as a trainee when there
>> > is a call for volunteers. I totally get the frustration.
>>
>> People could always
On Friday, February 4, 2022 6:24:56 PM EST Philip Hands wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> ...
>
> > Currently the only answer is join the FTP Team as a trainee when there
> > is a call for volunteers. I totally get the frustration.
>
> People could always just send additional data points to
Scott Kitterman writes:
...
> Currently the only answer is join the FTP Team as a trainee when there
> is a call for volunteers. I totally get the frustration.
People could always just send additional data points to the relevant ITP
bug, like this:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cg
On 2022-02-04 18:39, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In other words, this thread is once again drifting into a discussion of
> how to do copyright review *better*, when my original point is that we
> should seriously consider not doing the current type of incredibly tedious
> and nit-picky copyright review *
Timo Röhling writes:
> The FTP team review should focus on these types of mistakes, and not
> only with new packages: any "suspicious" upload should be rerouted to a
> POLICY queue for additional verification. There is some prior art with
> the auto-REJECT on Lintian errors, which could be exten
* Russ Allbery [2022-02-04 11:48]:
No, that's fine, that's not a strawman argument. That is, in fact, my
argument: I think it should be okay to put crap packages in the unstable
archive and fix them later, and I would rather put more effort into the
"noticing" part than in the pre-review part.
On Friday, February 4, 2022 2:48:50 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > Since we're doing strawman arguments in this thread: I disagree with the
> > notion that it's not a problem to put crap packages in the archive and
> > fix them later if anyone happens to notice.
>
> No,
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Since we're doing strawman arguments in this thread: I disagree with the
> notion that it's not a problem to put crap packages in the archive and
> fix them later if anyone happens to notice.
No, that's fine, that's not a strawman argument. That is, in fact, my
argumen
On Friday, February 4, 2022 12:39:09 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
> > What I read Scott as having been suggesting, by contrast, is that people
> > instead do copyright review for packages already in Debian, which may
> > well have had changes that did not have to pass through
The Wanderer writes:
> What I read Scott as having been suggesting, by contrast, is that people
> instead do copyright review for packages already in Debian, which may
> well have had changes that did not have to pass through NEW and that
> might not have been able to pass the NEW copyright revie
On Friday, February 4, 2022 4:00:44 AM EST Philip Hands wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> ...
>
> > My impression is that people are tired of waiting on New, but no one
> > really seems to be interested in doing any work on any alternative
> > other than more bugs.
>
> Part of the problem is
On 2022-02-04 at 04:00, Philip Hands wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> ...
>> My impression is that people are tired of waiting on New, but no
>> one really seems to be interested in doing any work on any
>> alternative other than more bugs.
>
> Part of the problem is that New processing is
Scott Kitterman writes:
...
> My impression is that people are tired of waiting on New, but no one
> really seems to be interested in doing any work on any alternative
> other than more bugs.
Part of the problem is that New processing is a bit of a black box, so
it's not clear to those of us out
On Jo, 03 feb 22, 18:55:44, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:40:08 PM EST Phil Morrell wrote:
> >
> > That is not the challenge being made here. I don't believe anyone is
> > arguing that licensing documentation bugs would be anything other than
> > RC bugs according to pol
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:40:08 PM EST Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:43:16AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I am a member of the FTP Team and have been participating, at least a bit,
> > in this thread. I am not, however, speaking for the team.
>
> Hello Scott, thank y
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:43:16AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I am a member of the FTP Team and have been participating, at least a bit, in
> this thread. I am not, however, speaking for the team.
Hello Scott, thank you for taking the time to follow this thread, there
are two very specific
On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 1:21:38 PM EST Alec Leamas wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> On 02/02/2022 18:46, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:16:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:3
John Goerzen writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01 2022, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but
>> I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of
>> peer review system for new packages that is less formal and less
>> bottl
Dear list,
On 02/02/2022 18:46, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:16:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion tha
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:16:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion that any package entering
> unstable without having underg
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion that any package entering
> > unstable without having undergone NEW review (which, in the revised
> > model, might be every n
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion that any package entering
unstable without having undergone NEW review (which, in the revised
model, might be every new package) should automatically have a bug filed
against it requesting sui
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >>> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via
> >>> NEW, but I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by
> >>> setting up some sort of peer review system for new packages that
> >>> is less formal and less
On 2022-02-02 at 11:21, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:39:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 01 2022, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>>> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via
>>> NEW, but I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by
>>> s
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:39:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01 2022, Russ Allbery wrote:
I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but
I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of
peer review system for new packages that i
On Tue, Feb 01 2022, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but
> I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of
> peer review system for new packages that is less formal and less
> bottlenecked on a single team tha
On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 13:44 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Wookey,
>
> Am Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:07:21PM + schrieb Wookey:
> > Has anyone on the actual FTP team responded to this thread yet?
> > (sorry, I can't remember who that is currently)
> >
> > Either on Andreas's original simple que
Hi Wookey,
Am Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:07:21PM + schrieb Wookey:
> Has anyone on the actual FTP team responded to this thread yet? (sorry, I
> can't remember who that is currently)
>
> Either on Andreas's original simple question: 'Do we still _have_ to keep the
> binary-NEW thing?'
> Or thi
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:18:07 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Wookey writes:
>>> For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written,
>>> and would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not
>>> particularly because I currenly have
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:18:07 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wookey writes:
> > For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written, and
> > would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not
> > particularly because I currenly have the honour of the 6th-oldest
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:18:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW,
>> but I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some
>> sort of peer review system for new packages that is less
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:18:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but
> I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of
> peer review system for new packages that is less formal and less
> bottlenecked on
Wookey writes:
> For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written, and
> would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not
> particularly because I currenly have the honour of the 6th-oldest
> package in NEW (8 months) :-) In general I have found NEW valuable as
On 2022-02-01 07:56 -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>I seemed to remember we retain actual outside council last i knew. Is that
>still the case?
>This request ought to come from the ftp team if we do do this, fwiw
Has anyone on the actual FTP team responded to this thread yet? (sorry
I seemed to remember we retain actual outside council last i knew. Is that
still the case?
This request ought to come from the ftp team if we do do this, fwiw
Paul
On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 4:12 AM Stephan Lachnit
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
> >
> > As for get
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Carter wrote:
>
> As for getting legal advice, we do have an existing contract with Aaron
> K. Williamson of Williamson Legal, PLLC (https://www.akwlc.com/). His
> specialty is Open Source softwware, technology, licensing and contracts,
> so he would be a
Micah Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the interests of transparancy, openness, keeping people from
> emailing debian-devel instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] why not make the
> published contact address for ftpmaster be a publically viewable
> archive? It doesn't have to be a list that everyon
On 2006-03-13, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody mailed ftpmaster@ about the size of the NEW queue. -devel isn't
> a contact address for ftp-master, at least speaking for myself,
> mailinglists have a much lower priority than things like ftpmaster mail,
> and when backlogg
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ma, 2006-03-13 kello 14:59 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar kirjoitti:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:20:38PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> > Is there a reason why the question should be made in private?
>>
>> It seems as if only problems and annoyances end up on mailinglists
ma, 2006-03-13 kello 14:59 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar kirjoitti:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:20:38PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Is there a reason why the question should be made in private?
>
> It seems as if only problems and annoyances end up on mailinglists, and
> *not* to [EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:39:04AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 06:53:08PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > It looks approximately as though nothing has been examined since a month
> > ago.
>
> Perhaps the ftpmasters are busy with the mirror split?
Different peo
50 matches
Mail list logo
