Hi Kurt,
sorry for answering so late, but I had a "great" combination of being
sick and too much work.
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150921 08:34]:
> I would also really like to see such text replaced by a diff since
> it's for more obvious what the changes really are.
I think I said in
* Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150901 13:52]:
> It'd be good if you (as well as Andreas, as GR proposer) could comment
> on the full series of commits in that repository, to make sure we all
> agree on a constitution diff.
Up to now
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150829 16:03]:
> (Or I might be totally confused about the effects of all the
> changes you're doing. Those are all non-obvious changes that seem
> to change more than the things you want to fix.)
IMHO your questions should be answered by others already, plus the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150831 11:23]:
> Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit :
> > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice
> > for the voter. In that case, the damage is already done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi together,
we (as the Technical Committee) have encountered two bugs in the
constitution which we like to fix. For this reason, I propose the following
General Resolution to change the constitution.
Please note that we put both issues into one GR
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
(After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced
wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify
paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
---
3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR
procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
written.
Do you agree that
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140302 13:07]:
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution to avoid invoking that
clause and keep the current decision
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
overturn it.
The fact there's a
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
resolutions:
11th Feb as modified by
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [100325 18:18]:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
archive is very difficult:
[...]
How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [100323 01:47]:
AJ's question, and particularly his other longer response to the question
about disappearing DPLs, really highlight what I think are some
disagreements between he and I about how we see Debian. I fundamentally
do not believe in the grow or die
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [100322 21:50]:
All in all, this is probably a topic where a quick and easy
devotee-based poll might show where the DD body stands in the trade-off
between the advantages and disadvantages of enabling popcon submissions
by default, and finally get this
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [100319 22:57]:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
Is there any legitimate reason that wanna-build access should be
restricted to any group smaller than the
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100317 01:52]:
I propose that we reshape the sections and priorities of our archive, so that
it is easy to remove from Testing any RC bug that is not in a core pakcage,
and is old and not tagged RFH.
We already do that, provided the RC bug is old enough.
* Yavor Doganov (ya...@gnu.org) [100317 14:55]:
- mips/mipsel are probably the most hated archs by DDs in the past few
months :-), and there's no ironclad way to secure their future too.
First of all, the needs-build queue is almost empty on mipsel (and was
on mips till we lost the hard disk
* Margarita Manterola (margamanter...@gmail.com) [100318 21:03]:
I would like to support as many architectures as possible. We cannot
deny the passage of time, however, and so we must accept that some
architectures are bound to stop being supported. This even happened
some years ago with
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081231 21:55]:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for
the first call on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an
appeal instance which makes
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
(0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) 1
Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
(1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) 3
Dropping Option
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
[ difference between options 2 and 5]
It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
of the other options
* Ean Schuessler (e...@brainfood.com) [081217 14:53]:
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
of the SC and the DFSG to
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 23:01]:
Option 1 is either meaningless or an
override of a delegate decision, but the ballot doesn't reflect this.
As Option 1 doesn't say it overrides a delegate decision, I read it as a
position statement of the day.
Option 4 looks equivalent
* Bas Wijnen (wij...@debian.org) [081216 00:37]:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
think some additional clarity around
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
* Loïc Minier (l...@dooz.org) [081214 21:28]:
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
The topic is misleading at best. This is don't release lenny.
Cheers,
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081201 01:15]:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits
as needed ]
| Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
|
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 15:28]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Honestly, the time wasted on this whole GR cycle is orders of magnitude more
than the time it would have taken to just finish removing the sourceless
firmware from the main
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 16:26]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
DFSG violations in main.
Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 18:02]:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a
wording?
If a vote supersedes a part of a foundation document but does not specify
editing
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081114 21:01]:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
|
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081112 16:31]:
I think I agree with the suggestion of creating a new archive section
for firmware - packages that are acknowledged to not meet the same
standards as main, but checked so that we know they're still legally
shippable by default on official
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081109 18:26]:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
| Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
| against each other.
I believe this phrase invalidates SC #1.
I'm not argueing about believes
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081029 20:58]:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081031 09:37]:
I wonder if we should haven an option on the ballot that asks the DAM to
basically go forward with their idea, explicitly authorizing them to
merge the DM setup in to it?
I think it would be helpful to have that as an explicit option.
I
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081101 09:26]:
Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold.
I'm sorry to say but that happens only if the resolution says so (If
such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers, or if it is
proposed by the Technical
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081027 16:15]:
Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
community (Social Contract #4);
2. Given that we have known for two previous
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080503 01:09]:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 11:31:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, this seems to indicate that the way to add new people to the release
team isn't an issue. It however indicates also that there must be a way
how the DPL can change a team
.
Good.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 15:45]:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 11:51:53 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 01:27]:
Why not making it the other way, allowing the DPL to remove people if
he wants?
Well, that does
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 16:55]:
Now, I must admit that cronyism or not, the release management
seems to be working, but at one point so were some of the other teams,
which have come under criticism of late for being obstructive.
So, this seems to indicate that
. Adding more people isn't likely to fix that.
Agreed.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of preparing complex arguments how to change the tech ctte at
places where it is not broken.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080317 00:24]:
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:13 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The creiteria can be more than just voting
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
* Andreas Barth [Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:28:52 +0100]:
as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
revision control repositories of a team
can't be defeated; the Chairman's casting vote also can't save
an option that's got 5 votes for and 2 against).
I would rather prefer to fix the definition that 3:1 majority *really*
is a 3:1 majority.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
. happened
recently with dpkg.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
revision control repositories
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
#436093 for those following along at home.
It could be dpkg as well.
Can you justify this assertion?
I have worked _with_ Guillem
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 10:51]:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
#436093 for those following along
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 12:46]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 22:27]:
* Andreas Barth:
So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them
/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the wanna-build on
buildd.d.o are DSA maintained. And not in all cases are DSA members the
buildd maintainers, even in cases where the machine is in ud-ldap.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
maintainers are not a big enough use case for you?
I hope you notice that even I'm on that list marked as non-DD maintainer
...
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposal. (Because it is way more natural to just make it part of the NM
process.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their teams
packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer I think it
would
make
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
Why
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 13:27]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams
://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 22:04]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]:
I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different
packages successfuly for my customers since several years.
Sorry if this sounds
which will allow
uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to be used down in a GR,
but that's a minor issue for me.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070605 21:09]:
So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
If there's a principle that
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
contains a whole bunch of other RC bugs that are
fixed with 2.6.18. So, it has been considered, but the cure would be
worse than the desease.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070303 22:21]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone is connected with a trolling organization, or being convicted
for e.g. falsification of a balance sheet, this is something I want to
know pre-voting.
Are you seriously comparing being
of any action on our servers, but just a
disapproval to this concept.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
That sounds like a good idea anyways. Perhaps we can start with be an
optional part for starters, and see how it performs.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to an experimental version of a library it is certainly my
responsibility to fix it, independend whether I uploaded that package
together with the source or not.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
to feel power flowing through
their body by banning somebody.
This is wrong. d-release is a role account, and we made sure it is
treated so.
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 10:00]:
I paste here the last instance of the draft proposal by the debian kernel team
[1]. Well, mostly me and Frederik, with direct input from Manoj, and
reflecting
assorted comments from others, Steve and Anthony being the most prominent
ones.
is essential for the release of etch, I would like to go on to vote
soon.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contract on the 4th of July 1997.
`
I'm seconding both of these proposals.
Cheers,
And5
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
(they can just rotate between a small
number of very different proposals).
perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
now.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
shall also not be considered a program.
seconded.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the time has come.
(And frankly speaking, the best way to make changes like that is IMHO a
GR. We just need to learn how to survive GRs without making a flamefest
out of them. :P )
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
implementation (and also,
technical differenes shouldn't make an ethical difference).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwifi is
clearly non-free.
Yes, that's why we (including Aurélien) want to keep it in non-free.
But that doesn't get changed then anyways with Steve's proposal.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
designated by the Project Leader or their Delegate(s);
+ any Developer may post there.
That's a new thing which wasn't the case up to now, at least not for
!spi.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
people except mjg were in favour, but
just what it was - that all people he asked were in favour. So, Andreas
didn't misrepresent the truth (at least not to me).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
), and about some of the
mails Andreas answered. We are BTW in the public IRC channel
#dplteam2006 on oftc where anyone can join (and the channel can be seen
in the people's whois, as the secret flag is not there by purpose).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth
election?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 16:25]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 14:42]:
[...]
You reiterate things where Andreas clearly stated that you have
over-interpreted him.
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has
-
however, on the other side, as this is currently still somehow in the
design phase, I'm not too sure it requires an announcement as long as it
doesn't get in the way of the day-to-day-work.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
support Andreas this year).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] - so the team can be contacted.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
