Re: I hereby resign as secretary
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used to. It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. I probably shouldn't write this tired at 11:30PM, but here goes. I get no joy whatsoever out of the current mailing list discussions. It is sad to see people arguing so bitterly about pedantic matters in constitutions and guidlines and policy when that stuff is NOT why we're here. We're here to make a Free operating system, dammit. People that are not here to make a Free operating system shouldn't be here. [...] I have considered leaving the project several times this year. The fun of being a Debian developer went away long ago. I maintain packages for my own utility now, at home and at work, and that's it. +1. I'm dropping about a mailing list a year, which is a pretty slow exit... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Technical committee resolution
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:39AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Well I'm happy at least one person doesn't think it's a lame-brained idea or too much to ask. I wasn't sure how it would be recieved. I also think it's an excellent idea. It gives a rotating source of follow-through, instead of relying on one or two members of the group who feel differently about the group's obligations to end up doing the follow-through (or dropping it and feeling bad about it). No, I'm not talking about the history of the TC here so don't go looking for precedents; I'm talking about similar groups I've served on in the past. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question to the Debian community ...
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 11:05:36AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: I'm going to assume that you're alluding to the failed marriage of Sven and Frans. I have no idea why either of you think I am interested in discussing the Sven saga, because I am not. Then I recommend you not respond to discussions about it; that seems to work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign, how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ? The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is nearly insane. I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what would benefit the project the most than one that'd try to do everything at the same time as good as it gets -- and running the risk of in the end not achieving much at all. Totally agreed. Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it becomes harder to answer. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2005
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: Hi, At the time of writing, less than two hours before the end of the vote, the standing are still lower than expected; here is a comparison with recent years: Er Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on April 10th, 2005. Do you mean, less than two days before? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the developers could settle the issue by a GR. Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR? After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still looking for an answer to this question. I think that the Technical Committee is a more appropriate solution to this problem; if they don't agree with me then we have to continue down the GR path, but I would like to see a decision one way or the other. -- Daniel Jacobowitz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR? On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still looking for an answer to this question. I think that the Technical Committee is a more appropriate solution to this problem; if they don't agree with me then we have to continue down the GR path, but I would like to see a decision one way or the other. The technical committee has yet to issue any official opinion. In that case, I think it's premature to be this focused on the GRs until that has happened. I at least would prefer to avoid a GR if the Technical Committee's opinion permits. -- Daniel Jacobowitz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, So you can make effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system that is not driven by the current glibc. Nowdays, we don't need to do this kind of work which is sometimes executed for system bootstrapping. Does that work? Cross compilation is tricky -- do you know anyone who has done this? If debian's glibc can be built on bsd running under bsd's libc, then that fully satisfies the legal requirements, leaving just the practical issues. Thanks, I do this on a daily basis. Generating the complete set of Debian packages would be very difficult, but also unnecessary if you're willing to scrap a couple of chroots in the process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, So you can make effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system that is not driven by the current glibc. Nowdays, we don't need to do this kind of work which is sometimes executed for system bootstrapping. Does that work? Cross compilation is tricky -- do you know anyone who has done this? If debian's glibc can be built on bsd running under bsd's libc, then that fully satisfies the legal requirements, leaving just the practical issues. Thanks, I do this on a daily basis. Generating the complete set of Debian packages would be very difficult, but also unnecessary if you're willing to scrap a couple of chroots in the process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: ccing messages
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:42:18PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: if you didn't cc me, you don't get a response. Use a mailer that announces your preference, or cope with whatever people feel like doing, just like the rest of us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Please check your mailer. When it left my exim queue, it was signed. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I second Branden's proposal. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ pgp35nvUsltCY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky politicians here, so why are we acting like them ? You went on on to say two other things: 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote. 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted Where was the swap discussed? Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive pages? Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of ``Modified Swirl'' ? Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here? [...] This was a snafu. Listmaster is looking into putting the complete archives on the web. And if any developer wants to search them, the archives in the usual location on master are complete. As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try to use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page for the bulk of the voting period. I think you are confusing what the current vote is about. The modified swirl uses the bottle on neither logo. The swapped swirl would use the bottle on the official logo. What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them should include a bottle. Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1. These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not swapped. But the Dual logo vote happened first, and was already decided when the New Logo vote occurred. That's not a valid conclusion. In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that there should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used. The bottle WILL be used. By some vendors, at least. I have every intention of using it if I ever do something deserving an Official logo. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 03:47:58PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 08:29:03AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: For other ballots, I would be; for this one, I didn't find any discussion necessary. I can't see why all discussion of a ballot must occur on the debian-vote list. Most of these things being on debian-devel, and could remain there. There is no reason. Howerver, much of the discussion spins off of the proposals and results and such so the discussion tends to remain on -vote. The only argument I can see for -vote being a discussion list is volume. There *could* be people who want to participate in the dicussions who can't handle the volume of -devel (for a variety of reasons, one that I consider valid is the cost of d/l the mail for people how pay either by the byte or by the minute). I would object to any rule that discussion *must* be on -vote, but I would also object to any rule that dicussion *must not* be on -vote. I'll throw in two cents for people who don't have the time to read through debian-devel. I manage to keep abreast of what is going on without that, and I still consider myself an active and interested member of Debian; discussions of issues for which there will be an actual vote are considerably more interesting to me than a lot of the random chatter on -devel. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: [stevegr@debian.org: Re: [PROPOSED] Swap the open and official versions of the new logo]
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:15:40PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 04-Jun-99, 03:49 (CDT), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it. Second. That was one thing that always bugged me about the swirl thing (although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally. Third. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: [PROPOSED] Swap the open and official versions of the new logo
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:15:40PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 04-Jun-99, 03:49 (CDT), Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it. Second. That was one thing that always bugged me about the swirl thing (although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally. Third. Again. Signed this time. I hope. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ pgpuQKfovtvaF.pgp Description: PGP signature
