On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, MartÃn Ferrari [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
better job of them than other
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
technical
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:28:53 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the
same committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately,
for your own sake, certainly not mine...
Err, is that some kind of a threat? Why
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
might have on ones performance. As examples I think that it would be
reasonable
Hi,
On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[wordpress]
FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
as well, I no longer care.
Hu?
Can you please elaborate? Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
it - I don't understand.
regards,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:13:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
might have
Hi,
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 11:09, Joey Schulze wrote:
[wordpress]
FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
as well, I no longer care.
Can you please elaborate? Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's
keep it - I don't understand.
Maybe it's meant cynical?
Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[wordpress]
FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
as well, I no longer care.
Hu?
Can you please elaborate? Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
it - I don't
[ Please Cc me on replies, if any, I am not on -vote. ]
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi Manoj, I haven't yet got the ack for my vote but I guess I know the
reason. Do you use the pristine Debian keyring? If so, could you
please either refresh all keys
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which people
were performing
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
concluding that
Joey Hess writes (Re: Technical committee resolution):
Ian Jackson wrote:
So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
problem with TC decisions being ignored.
The TC is the decision-maker of last
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Technical committee resolution):
As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like this should be
made by polling the suers (not a vote -- polling them for opinions
_and_ reasons.
The TC would have been equally wrong body to make this decision.
Ian Jackson wrote:
That's a nice idea but if a problem with the TC is that the decisions
are too poor, reducing the number of people who review those decisions
seems like a bad idea.
One thing that I'm feeling is that if a technical decision comes down to
a vote by a committe, there's often
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
propose
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:42:05 -0400, Mike O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You are mistaken. I should have included more of the quote, where you
definately talk about speed. Here is the entire paragraph:
Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good
predictor for performance
17 matches
Mail list logo
