On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:17:45PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> thanks for the answer, so the question still stands:
> can we please have public irc logs? Would you consider such feature?
I hereby threaten to rank below NoTA any candidate who supports
public irc logs.
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50:30PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Disbanding the TC would likely do more harm than good. There would be
> no way to conclude a disagreement.
I believe that there is evidence prior to 1999 that neither of
these sentences is accurate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Acting together with themselves? ;-)
Thank you.
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig 2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02 18:17:43.180963356 -0500
@@ -20,10 +20,9 @@
Each decision in the Project
Anyone want to sanity-check the section numbering?
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig 2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02 16:04:12.864929363 -0500
@@ -20,10 +20,9 @@
Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the following:
1. The Develo
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
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
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
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
>
> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
> I would contend that yo
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
> never needed.
Agreed.
> We should fix the constitution so that we can leave the duty of
> interpreting the constitution to the secretary.
Agreed.
> We ju
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can
> misjudge it...
That's great.
> If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a
> more suitable version?
I'm happy to delay the release in
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:45:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> In both cases (with and without the choice), we're bound by the social
> contract and may or may not diverge in practice. This choice doesn't
> have any practical impact and doesn't change any rule or project
> opinion.
I agree wi
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:57:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> The topic is misleading at best. This is "don't release lenny".
That's not what it is either.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:44:20PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>b) why have a "reaffirm the social contract" option when we have
> "further discussion"? We all agreed to honor the social contract
> anyway.
Saying that we honor the social contract and then going ahead and doing
the o
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, do you think that I am Release Manager, and if so, have any power as
> that, and if so, why do I have powers? (Subdelegated via aj -> vorlon ->
> aba?)
I think it is because Debian is an Old Boys' Club and that the Release
Team i
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 11:49:58PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Don't be silly.
What's silly is pretending that there are these magical autonomous
subcultures called "infrastructure teams" that deserve sovereignty for
no apparent reason.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:24:53AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Well, if a team decides to expand on its own, which they do normally, this
That should not happen normally. The Constitution should not allow it
either.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 09:40:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I think that it's going to make a difference, because it will eliminate
> the notion that there are grey areas, which has historically obstructed
> progress - no leader wanted to order people to do things differently when
> it was not c
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the tech-ctte
> needs to make decisions for the project that the project can then
> implement. Yes, thi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 05:29:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, I am secretary, and work on debian technical policy; you
> think this is overloaded with too many responsibilities? Any tech ctte
> member worth their salt would be involved in Debian beyond maintaining
> packages
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:06:41PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> decisions, or not making them fast enough.
No, I would argue that a portion of its membership is trying to rush
and make decisions far too quickly.
> I haven't heard a
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:43:14AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I also think that the process is not clear to everybody. There is an
> policy-process.txt, but that doesn't seem to be current. From Anthony's
> mail about the delegation:
Marga put this up:
http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProces
Steve,
You served a term as "Assistant Project Leader". What are the
differences between the job you did then and the job you would
do as DPL?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raphaël,
Why isn't dpkg in collab-maint on Alioth? Why should it be or not be?
As DPL, how would you react to the recent events concerning dpkg
development?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc,
Your platform contains the following claim:
> This can hardly be solved from the outside - but a start would be to
> not defame these groups as "evil cabals" hindering the rest of the
> project out of spite.
Why can "this" not be solved from the outside? How can it be solved?
How will no
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 Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
>
> 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
I'd better complain then.
1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we s
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 11:45:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Then I recommend you not respond to discussions about it; that seems
> to work.
I apologize for the noise, and I apologize for not realizing that all
threads are really about Sven.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:49:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Welcome to Debian, and the way those in power would like it to be. And
> then you wonder i am having such a problem since over a year now.
No, I don't wonder that at all.
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:05:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 02:07:36PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you're out to improve the world and get it rid of all social
> unfairnesses, I suggest you find yourself another project.
Now there's a shitty thing to say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
> Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
> Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rath
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:43:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this question, or what the point is.
I will clarify. AJ obviously feels that it is his prerogative (under
which hat or set of hats, I do not know) to decide which set of
architectures in the archive a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:58:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Try "please, blow me away".
In your opinion, is it ever appropriate for any of the
following parties to insist on being "blown away" in exchange
for removing an obstacle to other developers' work? If so, when?
1) DPL
2) ftpmaster
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:09:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There's a difference between criticizing someone's work, and being an
> insufferable prick.
Are you referring to Frans or AJ when you say that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> As I personally feel that this GR is a misplaced attempt from the
> disgruntled DDs to get their way, I have voted for "further discussion".
I personally feel that the changes to dak were a misplaced attempt by
the ftp-team to get its w
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:02:29PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> After discussions, he decided to continue that experience outside of
> Debian as DD. One can discuss how much he succeeded at that, but the
> distinction between the initial idea launch as DPL and the setup as DD
> should be pretty
> Trolling organizations are illegal in Vanuatu. We shouldn't allow any
> Debian developers to break the laws of Vanuatu.
Don't worry; we're safe. Sam does GNAA stuff while wearing his
dunc-tank hat, not his Vanuatu pants.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
> Huh, dunc-tank != the Project
Clint, the DD != Clint, the person mocking you right now.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:15:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I've still not seen Aurelian or the folks so upset with this acknowledge
> any problems with what he's done, or any similar indication that they've
> learnt from it and won't just do the same thing again. And I've seen
> lots of flipp
> The greater question is, if the archive masters request
> developers not to submit packages built on emulated hardware, should
> that request not be heeded?
No, why would that be within the bailiwick of the ftp-team? If you're
going to claim that they have ultimate authority over all
> It is actually pretty relevant to your packages. I do not
> expect you to add co-maintainers to zsh packages whom you do not
> trust. It is pretty irrelevant to areas you are not responsible
> for.
Debian infrastructure and portions thereof are not analogous to
packages. As many ha
> http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/trust_building/
>
> Might be a good start. I'm sure Google can find you other things.
>
> Implying that the people whom you'd like to trust you are unreasonable
> probably isn't a good start.
Great. I don't trust you to do the right thing as DPL. I d
> FWIW, I got w-b access after demonstrating that I knew what needed done,
> regularly feeding batches of give-back requests to Ryan and James for builds
> that were release priorities/had obviously gone missing/had long-standing
> build problems that had been resolved, and generally not trying to
> I don't recall murphy being open access in the nine years or so I've
> been a DD.
Did you never see a problem with that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> >
[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
> 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
> 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?
> 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
> If that's not your goal but your ideals are offended because
> volunteers are getting paid, consider that you are the problem, not
> the project.
If you reply to GR proposals with the clever and useful phrase "*Not*
seconded" in some silly attempt to bully people into quietly putting
up with hor
> 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) and am seeking seconds
> for this proposal.
Secon
> Dear Anthony Towns,
>
> When I sent you a private mail complaining about the ad-hominem style of
> one of your posts on -devel, you published it on your blog. Will you do
> the same with the private mails sent you as a DPL, if you were elected ?
I'd like to know the other candidates' positions
> Planet Debian, Clint thinks I've been a hypocrite in my involvement in
> #debian-tech moderation. You can probably judge that for yourself by
> looking through:
I think you've been a hypocrite for numerous reasons, but none of that
is relevant to my questions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
In the context of the Debian community, do you feel that you are
currently a good role model?
To which aspects of your behavior should people aspire?
Which aspects of your behavior should people eschew?
How important is it to avoid being a hypocrite?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
> + comment; and requests by the authors of the post shall be
> + honoured.
If you're going to respect authors' wishes, how would that differ
substantially from the current situation?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
> I'm still not going to expend time just to fix your insignificant
> bugs, no matter how verbosely you bring the subject up :P
>
> There are plenty of other insignificant bugs in tla that I could be
> spending my time ignoring. You can sit and wait like all the rest.
Stop distracting people from
Assume the demarcated hypothetical scenario to be true for the questions
which follow.
===BEGIN ALLEGORY===
I spend the next several hours sending Andrew Suffield chain letters
that say "if you don't fix tla by Thursday, your liver will transform
into mascarpone." I send these emails without maki
> > This is something where I would really like to see our leader step in
> > and get the communication straightened out, rather than voting, but I
> > suppose I'd be willing to consider seconding it if it's short a few
> > seconds.
>
> If you think letting the leader handle this is the right solu
> I think attempting to force their hand this way is one of the least
> helpful things you could possibly have done.
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like
> this one option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider
> any of them thar oppossing view, no siree.
Are you telling us that if there were a GR consisting only of
undesirable options, you would rank them all above
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
Or it could mean that he prefers further discussion to several
options.
--
To UNSUBS
WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
WV> me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the origin
> as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> discretion on the part of those who would ordinarily be responsible for
> release
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Claus
> ---8<---
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
> non-free section. Claus
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> community. We will place their interests first in our
> priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
> in many different kinds of computing environment.
>
> We acknowledge that some o
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> community. We will place their interests first in our
> priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation
> in many different kinds of computing environment.
>
> We acknowledge that some o
> We made a promise to users; and even called it a
> ``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
> going to just leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan,
> no support going forward? For people whoi seem to think that
> distributing non-DFSG free soft
> We made a promise to users; and even called it a
> ``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
> going to just leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan,
> no support going forward? For people whoi seem to think that
> distributing non-DFSG free soft
> Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
> support non
> Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
> to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
> Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
> support non
> Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
> to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
> make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
> one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
> our time. I support moving forward with this.
> For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
> make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
> one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
> our time. I support moving forward with this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
> Nope, because part of your duties as a maintainer is to fix those
> bugs, and/or pass them upstream.
No part of that requires you to get mails from the BTS.
> Nope, because part of your duties as a maintainer is to fix those
> bugs, and/or pass them upstream.
No part of that requires you to get mails from the BTS.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
77 matches
Mail list logo
