Hi *,
"More of a comment than a question..."
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:17:00AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I am disappointed when people leave bitter and disheartened.
That's still kind-of better than if they're bitter and disheartened,
but won't go away though!
One of the things I often
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:28:40PM +, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 06:51 +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It is obviously okay for anyone who posted to disclose what they
> > wrote
> > to -private at any point; maybe a feasible and interesting sta
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:28:37PM +, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I had a longer reply to the rest of this mail, but I'm not seeing
the point.
> Which leads me to a repeat of a point I've seen before (and I didn't follow
> the
> entire discussion, so I may have missed an answer to it): are there any
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le dimanche, 11 septembre 2016, 11.01:09 h CEST Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > In that sense, my reading of the original version of the GR that just
> > failed was pretty much "eh, we don't care that muc
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:36:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> > I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also
> > need some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, [...]
> Furthermore, I think it's unrealistic that
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> My understanding is that at least some of us don't want a generic
> process right now, but would be quite fine with someone trying to work
> out a process that works for a well defined subset of debian-private.
That's... an
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:53:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Something like that, yes. It might even be possible to, for example,
> infer what the topic of an activity spike was likely to be, and then
> infer from timing who was giving input into sensitive discussions;
> [...]
> Detailed
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]:
However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that
surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than
they are now.
Why? What
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
The DPL already has the power to delegate tasks. I do not see how
electing more than one person would help with sharing the work: if it
can be shared, it is already possible to do so.
Hey, that's a good question. How /is/ electing
(Hmm, I tried sending this via gmail, but it doesn't appear to have
either gone through or bounced?)
Hi,
Reading through the DPL platforms this year, there are a couple of themes
that interest me...
Number one is something like where should the innovation come from?
GN You may notice that
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:07:21PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
question to all candidates:
Will you revoke 20131008134615.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info or do you
think this authorization is useful?
Link: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/10/msg1.html
Cheers,
aj
--
To
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, [December] 18th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 31th, 2014
I wonder if it would make sense for the project leader to extend the
voting
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:34:14PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think it would be better if ctte members did not bring disputes to the ctte
and then vote on the resolution of that dispute. [...]
One thing I'd been pondering suggesting was that the ctte change how they
view requests. ATM it
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
From those who want to drop the CTTE, I'd like to know what would they
have done to decide upon the init system for Jessie.
There were two aspects to that question: do we support non-default
init systems, and which is the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
+7. Term limit:
+ 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
+who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one
+of the two most senior members is set to
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:37:30PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The TC might be temporarily weakened by having more young members;
While this is conceivable, I don't think it's even remotely likely in
practice -- there is a huge pool of brilliant people in Debian to draw
from, and the work
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to
me.
FWIW, I'd say the opposite -- I'd say negotiating about the content of the
ballot is what it looks like when you're trying to come to a consensus;
and that
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past
proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has
also been long periods without much activity, [...]
FWIW, I agree with Steve
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
This approach seems like it focuses too much on aggregate committee
turnover, rather than just setting a term limit.
Term limits rather than turnover was what I proposed originally; the
response to that was that people were
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes:
- only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S
FWIW I think either of those deals with the concerns I raised, as it's
going to be way too much effort to game that, and
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
Colin) is:
aba 2005-12-27 8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com, 8.9y
bdale 2001-04-17 20010417195420.i5...@visi.net, ~13.6y
cjwatson
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
That said, I now am convinced that 2 (without salvaging by expiries
of non-senior members) is a better model than 2-R. I've pondered your
arguments below, but I don't find them convincing. Specifically,
Note that with Ian,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:20:21PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, J??r??my Bobbio wrote:
To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
fed up that it
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:09:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that the 2-R behaviour is more desirable, as it avoids 2 years
without replacements in 2017 and 2018. Note that this isn't about the
2-R rule as we could have the same behaviour by keeping the 2 rule
and simply dropping
are appointed in the next year, then the 2
most senior members' terms will expire at the next review round.) would be
better? I'm not sure if this needs explaining though?
I wonder if four and a half years (54 months) would be better.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:54:26PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- I haven't mentioned it yet publicly (still due to ENOTIME), but I
still have mixed feelings about the provision that allows younger
ctte members to step down, inhibiting the expiry of older members.
I'm not necessarily
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:34:13AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've briefly discussed this off list with Sam Hartman, who proposed a
sensible rationale (although not necessarily the same Antony had in
mind). The rationale is avoiding suddenly under staffing the ctte too
much, making it
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
freedom of choice of init systems)):
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'.
-project dropped -- no need to spam multiple lists, and -vote seems
like the right place for this topic to me.
On 28 October 2014 02:36, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:32:36PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:48:33PM +0300, Aigars
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:57:49PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
No developer in that chain was compelled
to run this under other init systems.
Well, yeah:
1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
work for the Project.
Compelling developers isn't something that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
The Debian project asks its
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno T?ll wrote:
That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view
that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement
for their packages. Finally I encourage
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:06:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a ??crit :
I think that it would be very helpful to describe how the question has
already been resolved. My understanding is that the various proposals
add policy on
while
on the ctte).
Cheers,
aj
[0] I'm pretty sure it was Stefano, my memory of that night's possibly
kinda blurry...
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
be
good enough IMO.
Given the convoluted wording, I think it makes sense to have a bit of
an explanation in the text itself, and not just in the GR.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:43:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
+At this time
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
nominees at all).
In that
having that be separate from the ctte's duties in general would be a
better plan than allowing discussions to go secret whenever someone
thinks it would be counterproductive.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:19:44PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
To make this concrete, we had a spat of GRs to decide various technical
and social issues in Debian some years back, and that practice has died
out almost completely. I know I at least much prefer the current
situation to when lots
, but there might be merit in more inventive
tweaks than just adjusting the term length.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
on persuasion, because ultimately there isn't any other reason
or way for anything to happen.
I'm not sure whether you'd count that as saying it is how we've
behaved as a project (because it must be), or isn't (because it's
generally not at the forefront of people's minds).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony
good, or if anyone would be willing to
volunteer, on the other hand...)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org
So at the start of the week, I asked:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:19:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Bearing in mind:
* www.debian.org/social_contract says Debian's priorities are our
users and free software,
* popcon.debian.org currently reports 91,523 submissions
,
What's your estimate of the current number of Debian users?
(Or, if by the time you've read this some of the other candidates have
already responded, how would you adjust their estimate/s?)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ
out in
participating in the first year Google ran GSoC; that both would've
required a very quick response though, and it's possible letting other
projects try these things first and only adopting things proven to
work is a good idea anyway)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
like a pretty fantastic bid from the German cabal.
I think this demonstrates that sometimes putting up with a bunch of
crap in the short term really does result in a way better eventual
outcome. YMMV of course.
--
Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:39:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
About freeze timing we think that DebConf should definitely not fall
into a freeze
We noticed that releases in the first quarter of the year
worked out quite well
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
You're also making some implicit assumptions about what is available -
are there really 9855 new projects that should have been added to Debian
last year that weren't?
Via twitter [0] here's another point of comparison: the iPhone
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. [...]
I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
option
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:43PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
] Campaigning period: Sunday, March 8th 00:00:00 UTC, 2009
]- Saturday, March 28th 23:59:59 UTC, 2009
Hmmm... Cutting it fine...
Depending on what you're measuring, we are still growing very quickly.
The
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I wouldn't say that's particularly quickly; but given the varying release
times, it's a bit hard to really tell. Correcting for that:
release datedays s.p.d p.p.d sg.p.a pg.p.a
hamm 1998-07-24
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
Hi *,
So looking through the nominations, platforms and the current -vote
threads, I'm left wondering if any of this actually matters. Only two
candidates running, no IRC debate or rebuttals added to the platforms,
and only a couple of topics people have even raised for the candidates
to address?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would personally prefer
for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things
on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...]
I would
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much:
I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented
over doctrinal disputes
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
But the way you wrote in 4 as we will make any private discussions
publically available at the earliest opportunity. is problematic since
it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along we will make
any private discussions
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
option x received over option y.
Option
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
=== === === === ===
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.
...
Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
I'm not too surprised
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Putting an USB key into most of my servers requires some hours of
driving and jumping through security hoops to get datacenter access.
[...]
I'd prefer an OS which allows full remote installation that does not
need some kind of
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple
GR ]
| This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
| with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
| social contract
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you will,
market share).
To paraphrase
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
| This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
| with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
| social contract is
Hello world,
I'd like to briefly suggest a different perspective on the issues at hand.
Rather than looking at whether this will delay lenny or not, it might be
more useful to just take a step back and work out what our principles are.
FWIW, I think what should be done about lenny follows pretty
(FD)
123- Wouter Verhelst (FD)
--12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
James Troup (keyring)
Jonathan McDowell (keyring)
Debian maintainer keyring team:
Joey Hess
1342 Anthony Towns
1342 Anibal Monsalve Salazar
Debian maintainer keyring team, additional commit
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
|
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:58:45AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I think the problem would be trivial to fix. The DAM should be the
party that makes the *policy decision*, and then DSA should be tasked
with actually creating the account, and keyring-maint with adding the
key to the debian
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think the committee would be worse off without you; and I find
it fundamentally disturbing that any of the founding members are still
members ten years later.
I think this sentence
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:32:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
An alternative is to throw out the member who is youngest.
No, that would again ensure stagnancy in the group, with the older members
being permanently appointed.
Or use birth month to throw out
Likewise.
-- the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Redoing the new blood thing once again is unlikely to have much
of an effect, really. I think we need to find some of the root causes
of the malaise that affects this institution, and fix that, rather
than rampaging
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:46 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
is AJ.
Because, of course, making
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
is AJ.
Because, of course, making things personal is definitely what the
technical committee is all about, and just generally a brilliant approach
to solving
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't need to read my mind, you can read Ian's recent post on the
topic, eg:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2008/03/msg0.html
I'm not sure that Ian deciding that he
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
stagnate again in future.
Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
directly?
Stagnation's one
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
term, so we get new blood in the committee,
Would it then be better to limit the term of tech-ctte
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing more specifics on how you think it's
disfunctional and why you think this change will fix the problems that you
see. I think I have a vague idea of how you're connecting the dots, but
I'd rather not try
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:00:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:49:02 +0100, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Where is the use case for added churn and loss of institutional
memory?
Old members can advise new members if they wish, and new members can
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
in the last few years, it has unfortunately become kind of custom that
the DPL kind of vanishes from the Earth after the wave of inauguration
and taking over powers has ebbed. Anthony has been kind of an
exception (since he was quite
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:52PM +0100, 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 of a team where the person leading the
team is active and
Hello world,
I've been thinking for a while [0] it'd be good to do a real revamp of
the tech ctte. It's been pretty dysfunctional since forever, there's
not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since it's
almost entirely self-appointed and has no oversight whatsoever the only
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28PM +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
5. As the primary duties of the Technical Committee is to resolve
^^
That should be duty, before anyone else points it out... (Props to
Hubert Chathi)
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:11AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
If you
can't decide between me an another candidate who is more committed, rank
me lower on your ballot.
So far that's not looking likely...
If anyone's tossing up whether to nominate or not, here's some thoughts
to
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Pierre Habouzit writes (Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and
TC chairmanship):
And FWIW, I don't think TC failed to rule because of the majority
rules, but just because the issue was technically not easy to solve
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:55:10AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel wrote:
Considering that this is probably a language misunderstanding
from a non-native speaker (myself), when you say there weren't any
candidates for additional DAMs that means (from what you heard, of
course):
Well,
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:34:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
We might be able to form a group and create a tool with such properties,
but it will take time. It takes longer if people sit around complaining
about how it's someone else's responsibility to take the initiative. It
isn't as
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
2007/11/19, Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
language should dictate the technical means we
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:58AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
James was directly involved in getting the current form to happen;
the need for change was a shock to the rest of us, not James or Joey.
Okay shock may be the wrong word, but for sure he thinks the current
process is way to
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 02:36:25PM +0100, Mario Iseli wrote:
on the #debian-newmaint there was just a (quite long) discussion started by
Enrico Zini who had the idea to fix the DAM by adding 2, 3 more people via a
GR. I
think that this would be a good idea. There were also discussions about
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 09:00:43PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Though, you skip a tiny little detail: how do you will make this real?
Not technically, I believe all those things you describe are technically
trivial. I mean socially. We have the current issue that:
I don't think there's
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-18 04:48]:
DAM (and FD, and AMs and nm.debian.org) is a policy position -- it's
about deciding who's allowed to do what, rather than a technical
position that involves keeping some
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:33:54PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
+If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is
+created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength.
+If there are
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's probably better than the first solution, as the first solution isn't
clone-proof: we could have elected n Sams!! ;)
So the first question is why would that be a bad thing?
(Of course, we don't have n Sams, we only have
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:56:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What happens when you send a single email like that has already been
demonstrated:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html
Add
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:42:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That was 23rd March. There wasn't a reply, and my access wasn't
removed. Early April was the release, and at that point debconf was close
enough that I don't think I bothered doing anything more until then,
at which point I stayed
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
(Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there
is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages
leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the
other cases
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the
reasons outlined by Jeff in:
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is
valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing.
Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
I doubt this, honestly. For one thing, I doubt that AJ, as much as that
may be tempting, would actually hold a grudge that way for very long; [...]
I also think Aj would be open to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Also, on another front, adding AJ, Joey, and Ryan Murray to a team isn't
exactly helping with getting new people involved who might have more free
time. How many other hats do those three people already wear?
Oh, for me: ftpmaster,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:20:32AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If n-m were working well, or even I thought it had any hope of working
well, I expect I'd be all for this being unified with n-m -- after all,
that's what I'd thought
1 - 100 of 1212 matches
Mail list logo