Le ven 22 septembre 2006 04:20, Steve Langasek a écrit :
that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming
from a delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an
organisation. It's just not compatible.
Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a delegate,
#include hallo.h
* Bill Allombert [Fri, Sep 22 2006, 12:33:28AM]:
Dear Debian developers,
As an amendement to the firmware GR, I hereby propose the following
position statement.
===
THE DEBIAN PROJECT:
1. reaffirms its dedication to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loïc Minier) writes:
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunc-Tank, lead
by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in
[Dropping -release from cc anyway; there's no possible reason this needs to
be cross-posted to 4 lists]
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:52:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
officially request funding? NO.
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with
dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue?
As I stated elsewhere (and was ignored by AJ at least once), I am not
particularly troubled by paying the RMs, but - as I understand it -
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 13:04, MJ Ray wrote:
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
to the removal from the distribution (main) of software that could be
Please, drop the scare quotes on software.
No, I don't think so. There are people who
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
Debian
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs,
for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to
officially request funding? NO.
How is the
Hello Pierre,
1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
2. The DPL is deeply in a structure that has supposedly nothing to do
with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of
Debian approval.
3. That structure wants to pay the RM's.
As you've
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an
insane position to hold. I can only imagine it
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?
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote:
The principle is simple:
- if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 04:36:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:02:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF GR PROPOSAL =
Given that the current set of issues held up to
vote, as well as the dispute over them and over
whether the
Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside
of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
and
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
I just don't agree with this. What bright line is
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote:
The principle is simple:
- if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money
Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic.
*heh*. I expect Erich's they referred to dunc-tank
John Goerzen wrote:
* Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
I don't recall this coming with strings such as can't be spent on
programmer time. So there is even precedent for the project
doing this sort of
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
two paragraphs:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
either, so
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
the
also sprach Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.23.2156 +0200]:
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but
we cannot fix
Le samedi 23 septembre 2006 à 22:03 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit :
Fortunately, nobody is talking about employing release managers.
Oh yes, we are.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
against some developers' opinions?
Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers have a vote
power over the actions of the DPL?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
cannot fix the problem directly.
Would
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010,
no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we
cannot fix the problem directly.
Would
A couple weeks ago, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My rough summary:
- (almost) everybody agrees that non-free drivers don't belong in main;
- (almost) everybody agrees that sourceless firmware at least needs to be
distributable before any kind of support can be considered;
- most people
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said:
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
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your
compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of
2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace
you, but we
Hi,
At the end of voting, with 344 Ballots resulting in 266 votes
from 266 developers, Constitutional Amendment General Resolution:
Handling assets for the project has carried the day.
Statistics about this vote are at:
http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_assets/
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]:
It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
to.
No, it's about a timely release and enabling two people of core
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote:
The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As
a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that
carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of
the project. Should
32 matches
Mail list logo
