* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-19 18:19]:
action (We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.) do you
I do that and I never said otherwise.
Well, actually, you said:
I disagree with this. I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 11:00]:
So, given that you don't think maintainers who neglect their duties
and don't follow documented procedures should be treated the same
as maintainers who leave the
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-19 18:19]:
action (We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.) do you
I do that and I never said otherwise.
Well, actually, you said:
I disagree with this. I
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2004-03-13 14:46]:
retired can simply get added again, and that others have to do
more checks.
So, is it possible for them to fail these checks? If one of them is:
Last time you were in Debian, you dropped out of contact for six
months, your
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
When someone wants to join again, you obviously look at what kind of
work they did in the past. [...]
I said, in a nutshell, that generally people who've
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:19:46PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 11:00]:
So, given that you don't think maintainers who neglect their duties
and don't follow documented procedures should be treated the same
as maintainers who leave the project properly, how do you propose
to treat them?
[...]
...but you do
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 22:16]:
wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
Project? Should we think about having
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid silently idling out by
threatening some sort of denigrated status.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-08 22:16]:
wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
inactivity, for which a maintainer should be excluded from the
Project? Should we think about having
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-09 01:07]:
I fully agree with you that it's important to follow the documented
procedure when leaving the project, but I don't think you're going
to persuade more people to avoid silently idling out by
threatening some sort of denigrated status.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
abuse of power on someone's part in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
situation on its
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
The key issue here is that different people have different takes at
different times on actually fullfilling that responsibility.
True. But that's not the same as stating theat there is no responsibility
there in the first place.
I don't have hard-and-fast answers
On 09 Mar 2004 18:51:38 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process
now? If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious
threat of abuse of power on someone's part
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:43:21 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
_If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two
(as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different
result WRT both to my standing in the community and my
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
abuse of power on someone's part in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
situation on its
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
_If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as
opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result
WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart
when the condition that caused my resignation no longer
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:08:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules
and decisions
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:16:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The intention of my question was a little different, however, and I
wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
inactivity, for which a
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the
So my question about ousting developers has generated a very
interesting discussion about the issue of inactive people, and it has
been interesting to see the candidates distinguish themselves in their
understanding of the issues concerned.
The intention of my question was a little different,
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
_If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as
opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result
WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart
when the condition that caused my resignation no longer
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:08:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules
and decisions
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:16:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The intention of my question was a little different, however, and I
wonder if the candidates might turn to the following for a moment:
Are there circumstances, other than a violation of the DMUP or
inactivity, for which a
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
abuse of power on someone's part in the absense of such a process?
Hey, I'm asking the questions here! :)
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:09:40 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the
So my question about ousting developers has generated a very
interesting discussion about the issue of inactive people, and it has
been interesting to see the candidates distinguish themselves in their
understanding of the issues concerned.
The intention of my question was a little different,
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:09:40 +0100, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
looked all over the constitution, and failed.
The
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me where it
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules
and decisions in my book.
No.
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
Have you left the project?
No?
Then why are you asking that question?
--
Matthias Urlichs
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now? Can you point to me where it
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties,
We have duties now?
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually
fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody
else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules
and decisions in my book.
No.
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 16:40]:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I
haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown?
I consider this a good idea, yes. Thanks for that proposal.
Why do you think it's a good idea?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute
automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with
cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to do
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040305 16:40]:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the
project [1]) should not be treated the same
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring maintainer
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:19:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Those who did not retire properly, on the other
hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
understand their duties and procedures in Debian.
Also note that people who *do* apply again for NM after
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:37:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Those who did not retire properly, on the other
hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
understand their duties and procedures in
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute
automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with
cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to do
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the
project [1]) should not be treated the
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:45PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2004-03-05 15:25]:
I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their
packages, inform the keyring
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Those who did not retire properly, on the other
hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
understand their duties and procedures in Debian.
Also note that people who *do* apply again for NM after
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:37:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:54:05PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
Those who did not retire properly, on the other
hand, will have to go through New Maintainer in order to ensure they
understand their duties and procedures in
Gergely Nagy wrote:
How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Gergely Nagy wrote:
How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
You mean, you want it *back*?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:20:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year?
Ensuring that Debian is well-equipped to grow and enjoy further sucess.
What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this challenge?
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
maintainers for their packages.
I
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
challenge?
We have quite a few challenges coming ahead. There is this SCO case: we
shouldn't laugh too hard at them, because that makes us look bad.
Gergely Nagy wrote:
How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Gergely Nagy wrote:
How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
You mean, you want it *back*?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:20:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year?
Ensuring that Debian is well-equipped to grow and enjoy further sucess.
What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this challenge?
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
maintainers for their packages.
I
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:49:23AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 21:21]:
People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
their efforts, put them on the
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 19:20]:
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet
this challenge?
I think I have covered this pretty thoroughly in the My goals
section of my
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet this
challenge?
We have quite a few challenges coming ahead. There is this SCO case: we
shouldn't laugh too hard at them, because that makes us look bad.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-03 19:20]:
A. What do you think is the greatest challenge facing Debian in the
coming year? What would you do as Project Leader to try and meet
this challenge?
I think I have covered this pretty thoroughly in the My goals
section of my
73 matches
Mail list logo
