What are the candidates' plans for formulating a clear policy for access to
DD status (with the all-important right to vote in Debian elections) for
other type of contributors (translators, UI/artist types, and even -gasp-
lawyers seem the most obvious examples)?
Thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
A (xhtml, line-numbered, colourised) log of #debian-dpl-debate is available
at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/debian_dpl_debate.html
Let me know if you want reasonable presentation mods.
Like the BBC says: other logs may exist.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The accounting solution at SPI is still tenuous. Illness, accident or simple
boredom could still easily lead us to the situation we had before. The
solution you've outlined could work but it increases complexity rather than
removing it. I don't know
Hi All,
Having just run the 2005 DPL IRC debate (and a stressful experience it
was too), Martin Krafft and I would like to get feedback on what people
thought of the debate and how it was run.
Suggestions for future debates will be very welcome, not that I am
planning to volunteer to do that again
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 12:32]:
It has been asserted on several occasions over the last few years that
the security team is overworked and understaffed. This is a problem
that is hard for the average developer to help with, because someone
who spontaneously volunteers
Hello DPL candidate who signed the Vancouver plan,
(Excluding Anthony Towns who signed as (ftpmaster) not as (DPL
candidate).)
The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
However [EMAIL PROTECTED] shows
Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
false. It mentions Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
under Jimmy Kaplowitz about SPI.
It looks from
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-06.jrk.1.br.1
and http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040907
Bill Allombert wrote:
The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
However [EMAIL PROTECTED] shows that
the security team was not consulted and the most active security officer
does not endorse the
This is the question I tend to ask every time, with a twist..
I see many of good ideas for ways to improve the project in several of
your platforms. If you are not elected DPL, which of those ideas do you
still expect to be able to work on? How will you be able to do it
without the power of being
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:25:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
false. It mentions Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
under Jimmy Kaplowitz about SPI.
It looks from
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
[...]
Er, let's quote every mention of security in Steve's mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~wget -q -O -
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The interesting question still is: Do the DPL candidates think it is in
order that such a plan is designed without consulting the security team?
Did they know it wasn't consulted? etc.
I think various people that should have been consulted weren't, and I
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right with counting words, and Bill is wrong when he says the
team was mentioned several times. But since there was no rationale
for the criteria put on release arches, people tried to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:59:13AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
I see many of good ideas for ways to improve the project in several of
your platforms. If you are not elected DPL, which of those ideas do you
still expect to be able to work on? How will you be able to do it
without the power of being
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:53:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Did you sign on the assumption it has been reviewed by the security team,
or did you know they had not been consulted ? Did you make some
investigations ?
Joey was invited to the meeting but could not make it. He was on
the list
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:16:51AM +, Javier Candeira wrote:
What are the candidates' plans for formulating a clear policy for access to
DD status (with the all-important right to vote in Debian elections) for
other type of contributors (translators, UI/artist types, and even -gasp-
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:08:21PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Bug #112699 illustrates a typical communication problem in debian. Since it
is a social problem and not technical, I think this is an issue that should be
addressed by the DPL (not tech ctte, whatsoever).
I disagree. The DPL is
Forwarded to the list at Andreas' request.
---BeginMessage---
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:48:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So this isn't really a James Troup question, it's a question of how
much screw-up is necessary before a delegation should be yanked?
This depends on many
I concurr.
I find AJ rebuttal on that specific point outrageous:
I am a SPI contributing member since 2001. By my reckon:
1) Branden is the only candidate that has contributed to SPI management.
2) Branden is by far the SPI contributor that has done the most for SPI
since 2001.
3) Branden
Hi, Martin Schulze wrote:
Synchronising security updates for several *distributions* (i.e. different
source versions) is a pain. Sychronising for all architectures is quite
easy as long as our great buildd network is in good shape.
There's one area where the two are easily conflated --
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:13 am, John Goerzen wrote:
Speaking solely for myself here: your analysis is correct. Branden was
not forced out, but resigned, and volunteered to help Jimmy later.
You may also find these minutes of interest:
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040106
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 5:49 pm, Bill Allombert wrote:
1) Branden is the only candidate that has contributed to SPI management.
2) Branden is by far the SPI contributor that has done the most for SPI
since 2001.
3) Branden become the treasurer at a point when SPI situation was awful.
The
Javier Candeira wrote:
What are the candidates' plans for formulating a clear policy for access to
DD status (with the all-important right to vote in Debian elections) for
other type of contributors (translators, UI/artist types, and even
-gasp- lawyers seem the most obvious examples)?
I don't
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of people becoming more tolerant,
just because things happen more often. I'd be more inclined to expect
the opposite, really. Especially if the complaints are focussed on the
process rather
MJ Ray wrote:
It looks from
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-06.jrk.1.br.1
and http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040907 that there
was 8 months between Branden quitting as treasurer and being
named as deputy. It even looks like SPI acting on the suggestion
Bill Allombert wrote:
I concurr.
I find AJ rebuttal on that specific point outrageous:
So, Anthony, I don't know if you can change your rebuttal, but if you can
I would suggest you to remove that part.
Also, I suggest rebuttals to be restricted to the plateforms of the other
candidates, not the
Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello DPL candidate who signed the Vancouver plan,
(Excluding Anthony Towns who signed as (ftpmaster) not as (DPL
candidate).)
No, I signed it as Anthony Towns, and left it up to Steve to work out
which hat or hats he wanted to classify that under. (Well, actually I
didn't
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Anthony Towns]
Hrm, I'm answering this as a How will electing Anthony help users
contribute? question, rather than directly as the How can user's
contribute? question it is.
Actually you didn't say anything related to the DPL post.
Oh, sweet then!
Which I take
to mean,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Do we actually need a DPL? Would we be noticeably worse off without a DPL?
ObVious: We'd be violating the constitution not to have one; if we
refuse to elect one, we'll just have Manoj and Ian act as the DPL until
we work out what we want.
The general answer is, in my view,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
How about the creation of a checklist for meeting organisation and
reporting? Something along the lines of:
[...]
5) Does our write-up start with the problems we wish to address and
then logically progress from there to the
30 matches
Mail list logo
