Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You don't need to read my mind, you can read Ian's recent post on the
> topic, eg:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2008/03/msg0.html
I'm not sure that Ian deciding that he doesn't think the tech-ctte is
functional or fast enough and henc
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> in the last few years, it has unfortunately become kind of custom that
> the DPL kind of vanishes from the Earth after the wave of inauguration
> and taking over powers has ebbed. Anthony has been kind of an
> exception (since he was qui
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:49:02 +0100, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Where is the use case for added churn and loss of institutional
> memory?
Old members can advise new members if they wish, and new members c
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing more specifics on how you think it's
> disfunctional and why you think this change will fix the problems that you
> see. I think I have a vague idea of how you're connecting the dots, but
> I'd rather not
Hi,
Although I am not yet a DD, as it can happen anytime before or after the
elections, I would like to ask a question to the candidates.
Debian is growing bigger everyday. I would like to know if you think
that it should adapt to its new size, and if yes, how can you help this
process as a DPL.
Hi DPL candidates!
Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and
bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org
to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright statements.
In particular, delegation seems necessary to avoid bureaucratic
blocks to getting impa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
>> term, so we get new blood in the committee,
>
> Would it then be better to limit the term of te
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have no idea is I am the only one left that is uneasy about
> such concentration of authority, or whether my fears are overblown, but
> I do think this aspect merits pondering.
I am as well, but of all the privileged o
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:53:25 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 22:27]:
>> * Andreas Barth:
>>
>>> So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your
>>> 3. with:
>>> 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two
>>
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 22:27]:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
> > 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
> > unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them as
>
* Andreas Barth:
> So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
> 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
> unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them as
> additional members at his choice, provided the maximum num
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
> Do you plan to post regular "bits from the DPL",
Regular reports to the project are planned, not only about DPL
activities, but about anything that is going on in the project and
wasn't
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
> What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
Continue doing lots of stuff for Debian. And since the DPL role will be
handled by 3 persons, we should hopefully be more visible as a whole too.
If one member is busy with real life
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nominations are over. It's you, Raphaël and Steve. So... I think your
> opinion here is fundamental: Are you still running?
Yes.
> What is your stand on them (well, yes, I know we don't yet have
> Steve's platform, and that'll be a fundamental point for y
Marc Haber wrote:
> What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
> Do you plan to post regular "bits from the DPL", and which measures
> will you implement to prevent a failure similiar to the failures of
> your predecessors?
You seem to value visibility more than achieve
Dear Candidates,
in the last few years, it has unfortunately become kind of custom that
the DPL kind of vanishes from the Earth after the wave of inauguration
and taking over powers has ebbed. Anthony has been kind of an
exception (since he was quite visible with the dunc-tank experiment),
and I r
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
...
>
> Nominations are over. It's you, Raphaël and Steve. So... I think your
> opinion here is fundamental: Are you still running? What is your stand
> on them (well, yes, I know we don't yet have Steve's platform, and
> that'll be a fu
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:49:02 +0100, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 11320 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers.
> How about making that a 9, and then have members with defined service
> times, so you end up with 3 new members
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:02:20 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:48:28 +1100, Anthony Towns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint
Marc,
When you announced you would run this year for DPL, you stated
explicitly (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) you didn't feel you
were the best possible candidate, as you were relatively short on
time, and you were only running -AIUI- in case no other "worthy"
candidate showed up.
Nomin
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:57:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:48:28 +1100, Anthony Towns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> > Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest
> >
On 11320 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
>1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers.
How about making that a 9, and then have members with defined service
times, so you end up with 3 new members every year?
With the other options as you wrote them that might mean the same 3
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been thinking for a while [0] it'd be good to do a real revamp of
> the tech ctte. It's been pretty dysfunctional since forever, there's not
> much that can be done internally to improve things, and since it's
> almost entirely self-appointed and ha
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:48:28 +1100, Anthony Towns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest
> serving current member, provided there have not already been 2
> or mo
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> But I think that it is important for any DPL candidate to be able to
> be a conflict solver, and - as the recent dpkg case has shown -
> conflicts over commits do happen, and can get quite bad.
In both cases I have made proposals to go forward but the ot
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 12:46]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
> > 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
> > unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or a
On Mon, March 10, 2008 11:07, Mike Bird wrote:
> Where is the dpkg team policy that requires Ian to rebase?
> We have asked many times
Exactly who is "we" here? Please name me three of your most recent
contributions to Debian that justify you making demands on the project
c.q. Raphaël.
thanks,
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers.
Why drop the suggested minimum of 4? Does this mean a one-man
tech-ctte would be fine?
>3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> Developer to the Technical
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 10:51]:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> > > > > #436093 for those followi
On Mon March 10 2008 02:50:51 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In Ian's case, he was aware before the commit that we didn't want him to
> do the merge and despite the guidance that I tried to provide him, he
> stubbornly was blocked to the unconditional merge of his branch as is
> (that is with a messed up
Le lundi 10 mars 2008 à 09:21 +0100, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> * Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 03:49]:
> > The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> > term, so we get new blood in the committee, and people don't get stuck in
> > the committee until they eve
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> > term, so we get new blood in the committee,
> Would it then be better to limit the term of tech-ctt
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> > > > #436093 for those following along at home.
> > >
> > > It could be dpkg as well.
> >
>
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> > > his opinion under which circumstances he considers i
On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> term, so we get new blood in the committee,
Would it then be better to limit the term of tech-ctte members to, say,
two years? Or three years? With the option that they
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> > > #436093 for those following along at home.
> >
> > It could be dpkg as well.
>
> Can you justify this assertion?
>
> I have worked _wit
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> > his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> > revision control repositories
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
>3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest serving
> current member, provided there have not already been 2 or more
Perhaps "such" should be i
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> > #436093 for those following along at home.
>
> It could be dpkg as well.
Can you justify this assertion?
I have worked _with_ Guillem Jover and Frank Lichtenheld and _they_ have
granted me commit
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> revision control repositories of a team where the person leading the
> team is active and asks t
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 08:13]:
> Oh and I don't really understand the question: why should anyone stop
> commits into a repository? You could just ask that they're not put on
> the release management branch without review.
I'm speaking of the release management branch, like it e.g.
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 03:49]:
>3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
> Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest serving
> current member, provided there have not already been 2 or more
> appointments to the Tech
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> * Andreas Barth [Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:28:52 +0100]:
>
> > as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> > his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> > revision control repositories of a te
aj wrote: [...]
> ...so much for non-adversarial campaigning, I guess.
Why? So far, this is only adversarial questioning of a candidate.
It doesn't necessarily require adversarial campaigning in reply.
Or is aba campaigning for one of the other candidates?
FWIW, I think each of the candidates ha
44 matches
Mail list logo
