Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
If you
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
democracy in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
If you want
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want something done, do it yourself.
Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
sorry for replying to the wrong list
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
===
= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
AOLme too/AOL
yours,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Santiago,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Ditto.
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
That is completely insane.
Hi Branden!
You wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Me too.
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):
It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.
Pete
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
democracy in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot
33 matches
Mail list logo
