Uoti Urpala wrote:
Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new
GR to override this one?
I was originally worried about this too, and it's one reason out of many
why I strongly dislike using GRs to decide technical matters.
My understanding though, is that this GR
Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.
Regarding the subject of
Luca Falavigna wrote:
The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
For the record, the TC expects
Ian Jackson wrote:
The technical committee
decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether
other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
What, then was #746715?
This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
(Constitution 4.1.5),
Sam Hartman wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Joey Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
Joey of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
Joey currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
Joey to the TC
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Either it's a position statement, or we're making position
statement (4.1.5), or using the TC's power (4.1.4).
In #727708 it says that a position statement will replace
this TC resolution.
In #746715 there is no such text.
So the question is going to be if this
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Note (and this is not splitting hairs) that serious bug is not a direct
analogue for release-critical bug.
This GR is not amending Debian policy, it's setting a technical
requirement at a more fundamental level, which has never been used to set
technical requirements in
Ian Jackson wrote:
The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
make it difficult to disentangle things in jessie + 1.
Can you please point to one thing in jessie that is currently entangled
in a way
Ian Jackson wrote:
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
The problem with making it simply not apply to jessie is that there
would be a continued opportunity to create `facts on the ground' which
make it difficult
Ian Jackson wrote:
Joey Hess writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
So if there is no backsliding, this GR will not delay the jessie
release at all.
But, the resolution of this GR and the start of the freeze cooincide,
+-1 week
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
opportunity there has been, that anyone thought that two weeks before
the freeze (which has had a fixed date for nearly a year now) was
Joachim Breitner wrote:
How about reversing the action: By default, there is an election, unless
a reasonable, well-defined number of DD publicly state that they see no
need for a re-election.
A variant on this that would not be susceptable to this:
I think this works well unless we have the
Paul Wise wrote:
Stefano you seem to be 5 years too late with this GR, fjp's AM report
looks like he was accepted primarily for his work on documentation and
translations:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2005/02/msg00017.html
Not really. From my original advocation of Frans:
|
| 2010 | 886 | 44.648 | 459 |436 | 88 | 49.210 | 9.76513 |
If I count right, there are 112 Debian Maintainers not able to be represented
in the above.
I wonder if conducting a parallel vote of the DMs, for information only,
would be worth doing next year? It would be interesting to
Nico Golde wrote:
when it comes to our users. I have no numbers to prove that but I doubt that
a
lot of users are reading planet (why should they..).
Because:
j...@gnu:~/tmp/xscreensaver-5.10grep planet.debian.org -r .
./debian/patches/53_XScreenSaver.ad.in.patch:+*textURL:
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
I consider blogs as non-free, proprietary material (a very few have a
proper license, the distribution media s*cks anyway).
I didn't notice a license on your email either. But every time I recall
licenses of email being discussed, the conclusion has been that it
doesn't
Joey Hess wrote:
Because:
j...@gnu:~/tmp/xscreensaver-5.10grep planet.debian.org -r .
./debian/patches/53_XScreenSaver.ad.in.patch:+*textURL:
http://planet.debian.org/rss20.xml
./debian/changelog:+ Now use planet.debian.org instead of .net
Which is run regularly by 10
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
A very good example of that is debhelper; nobody ever told anyone to use
it, yet most of our packages do, directly or otherwise.
Parts of Debian encourage experimentation, innovation, and evolution of
better solutions: parts don't. That debian/rules is a flexible,
Marc Haber wrote:
- dpkg still uses normal console prompting for dpkg-conffile
handling, while debconf has been mandatory for regular packages for
years now.
Dpkg has more active development now than it has for much of the
past fifteen years. And they've even talked some about
aj wrote:
Joey Hess
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
Anyway, it's always interesting
Adeodato Simó wrote:
I, too, think that the quoted sentence above from Manoj is just plain
inappropriate in a message sent with the Secreatary hat on.
I personally, don't belive in this hat concept that seems to have
infested the project. When I write a mail, *I* am writing the mail, it
doesn't
Luk Claes wrote:
Everything that is sent as [EMAIL PROTECTED] is seen as official posts from
the project just like things sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] only in different
capacities...
Some DPLs have found it useful to use the DPL email alias to lend more
importance to what they're saying, or
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
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
Well, just to pick an example, if the TC had chosen you to deal with
the wordpress-in-stable issue, and you had personally decided it
needed to be in stable, and had done whatever work was initially
needed to get it into stable
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 resort. So if such an issue is
brought to the TC, a decision is
similarly not ideal.
--
see shy jo
[1] Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This does somewhat resonate. But the experiment where we
decided to hand over an issue to one member who took ownership of the
issue did not seem to have resulted in a very different outcome --
perhaps because we ultimately did come back to a vote.
Which
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:37:29 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like this should
Ian Jackson wrote:
The causes seem to include:
Isn't the main cause that the Technical Committee is well, a committee?
(Recall the old saying about many heads and no brain.)
That seems to be the core reason for all the problems you listed.
I think we could fix these by
* Increasing the
Ian Jackson wrote:
The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
decisions, or not making them fast enough.
Agreed.
I haven't heard anyone suggest that the TC is actually making wrong
decisions.
Well..
#104101: The TCs resolution that kernel sould have VESA fb compiled
Anthony Towns wrote:
Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like
a win to me. YMMV.
Well, you could get to 5.5% then by only electing the DPL once every 2
years.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only
Christoph Berg wrote:
Particularly I don't like the fact that the initial policy for an
individual to be included in the keyring does not include any check
of any technical or non-technical skills besides having a gpg key and
be able to tick 3 checkboxes.
Being on the keyring is intentially a
about this:
* the Jetring developers (Joey Hess, Anthony Towns, Christoph Berg)
Basically, I think this comes down to the set of people who have worked
on jetring being the people who are interested in making this work as
well as possible on the technical side, and if we're part of the team
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That's precisely why it's written initially twice in that sentence.
initially is ambiguous.
Also, I don't want a precident of voting on what tools developers must
use. We already have enough bad GR precidents. :-P
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Anthony Towns wrote:
Err, it doesn't seem ambiguous to me: it'll start this way and may change
later... If you'd like to suggest other wording, you're welcome to...
If it's unambiguous, then the specification of what tools to use is
pointless, since it can change at any time, and so again, I am
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Anthony Towns:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
* none of the uploaded packages are NEW
* the Maintainer: field of the
Joey Schulze wrote:
The NM process after all is meant to help new maintainers become
skilled maintainers of packages. If we want to get them maintain
packages without going through NM we should not create a new stage
but drop or restructure the NM process. IMHO
The same argument could be
Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Flamewars are good if the discussions are based on facts. Lately most
flamewars in Debian were on opinions, not on facts.
I think it would be useful if we only used the term flamewar for
threads that contain actual flaming. The current alternate usage of
flamewar for any
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands
MJ Ray wrote:
Which brings me to a related point: some participants in this discussion
have been poor at mentioning vital roles they hold, or making it clear
what hat(s) they are wearing. Sorry to break it to people, but 'see
shy jo' is not that famous yet that it makes everyone remember 'ah,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Right. And the problem is that the d-i team seems to say to
themselves, as long as we never do the work, we can badger the rest
of Debian into sacrificing the Project's principles, and the work will
never be necessary.
Um, no.
a) I told people at DebConf that I
MJ Ray wrote:
3. as a special exception to help users who have vital hardware
without free software drivers yet, the Debian system and official CD
images may include hardware-support packages from the admin section of
the non-free archive area which conform to all Debian Free
MJ Ray wrote:
Apart from maybe possibly getting the wrong section, I think all of those
so-called 'serious flaws' are based on misreading the proposal.
It certianly seems to be based on us having different defintions of
terms including the Debian system and drivers.
AIUI, I would word your
Joey Hess wrote:
1. The archive did not support a non-free section for udebs until today.
Done.
2. libd-i and anna do not support multiple udeb sources, but can only
pull from one at a time; noone has yet fixed this
mrvn pointed out that true multiple source support isn't needed
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Not also that I found sad that the DPL try to kill this GR with his
latest mail to debian-announce. The problem is known for a long time.
How does posting straw polls of our users and developers to d-d-a manage
to look to you like an attempt to stop this GR?
If he
Anthony Towns wrote:
If it makes sense, what are the major difficulties/inconveniences/whatever
that were found in having this happen for etch, that will need to be
addressed to achieve an etch+1 release that's both useful and convenient
for both people who need/want non-free things, and those
Joey Hess wrote:
. Ship a separate non-free CD.
iv
5. Implementing anything in 5 is a lot of work. Implementing it all
4
will be pretty atrocious. My guess is still 6 months of solid work to
implent a credible subset of 5, just like it has
Anthony Towns wrote:
So, by the looks of things, we get the same result with either
American-style voting (only the first ranked candidate counts)
Actually, by American-style voting, several of the candidates would have
needed to band together to geta bigger share of the votes, with the ones
Ted Walther wrote:
If menu is a legacy program written by someone else
It would be documented in debian/changelog.
menu (0.0) unstable; urgency=low
* initial release
-- joost witteveen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 5 Nov 1996 22:42:09 +0100
Said changelog also documents pretty well how it grew
Anthony Towns wrote:
(a) branching the archive or doing other necessary changes to ensure
netinst CDs etc work reliably
Netinsts are relatively robust (though can be broken), businesscard,
netboot, and floppy would really benefit from that.
(b) security.d.o support against the last
Enrico Zini wrote:
I just went back to the mail archive of that time and stopped reading
after a while because of anger rising: lots of good efforts have been
done, and the instant reaction to those was in various case absolutely
disappointing. It's all stuff you can't put in a report: you
(Please treat this question as if it were asked on debian-devel not
here.)
Anthony Towns wrote:
I do think it would be interesting for the project to embrace the d-i beta
releases and the testing-security support and turn those into regular
mini-releases, without many of the standards we
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
a) The post contained sensitive material.
In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
post, and
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I change my position as it seems that's needed to take it to the vote.
I consider the whole proposal more important than the differences
between them
Me too, but I suspect Manoj will be happy with Aj's new proposal, so I
will limit myself to seconding it.
--
see shy jo
Anthony Towns wrote:
Comments, suggestions and seconds appreciated.
I'm very happy to second this proposal, since it saves me the bother of
finishing the rough draft of the same thing I've been sitting on for a
year, and is much more thought out to boot. Clearly an idea whose time
has come. :-)
Bill Allombert wrote:
The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
However [EMAIL PROTECTED] shows that
the security team was not consulted and the most active security officer
does not endorse the
This is the question I tend to ask every time, with a twist..
I see many of good ideas for ways to improve the project in several of
your platforms. If you are not elected DPL, which of those ideas do you
still expect to be able to work on? How will you be able to do it
without the power of being
MJ Ray wrote:
The debian-installer developers are working on probably the
single biggest improvement to debian access for years, making
it easier to install, but some languages that were in the old
installer are not in the new one and the list has been closed
for the next release with very
Sven Luther wrote:
I personally trust the ftp-masters, and believe they are working for the
best of the project, but it is hard when one has questions only they can
answer or act to solve, to wait apparently forever in the dark. And in
some cases, it is even harmfull for the project, as it
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
IMHO having a GR for this is wrong -- what goes into a release is the
business of the Release Manager. However, as there is already a proposal on
this, there should also be a counter-proposal for those who disagree.
I understand what you're trying to do, but I think
Josselin Mouette wrote:
I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, and I hope this can be
discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long.
I won't even consider this proposal until you or someone else explains
to me why we should use the voting system to decide an issue
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Seconded.
Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
(read: an answer) and nothing happened, I think this is a clear answer
from FTP masters, saying: WE ARE TO LAZY TO WORK AND TO LEET TO
COMMUNICATE WITH SECOND-CLASS DDs. WE WANNA BE REMOVED
Frank Pennycook wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would
seem valid to decide it by voting.
We don't vote to decide Debian policy, where different opinions are
expressed regularly, we don't
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:03:31 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe a better GR would be one removing the ftpmasters from their
position then. This would at least avoid trying to use a GR to make a
technical decision, and it seems to be the position
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]Organization:srivasta@debian.org wrote:
There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]Organization:srivasta@debian.org wrote:
There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:
I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any
Roland Stigge wrote:
Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i
Roland Stigge wrote:
Since the sarge release is near, I fully understand the reasoning that
leads to a deferral of the 2004.003 GR. But considering that the
official roadmap of the next Debian release is already deferred by
nearly 5 months now and considering the RC bug count and the d-i
Markus wrote:
Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
source.list looks. The main answer will be:
deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
Markus wrote:
Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most
user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why:
Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS
source.list looks. The main answer will be:
deb ftp:... main contrib non-free
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
Andrew Suffield wrote:
One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
and we, as in Shall we meet by the river? Will would be used
in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is how I undesrtanfd the Shall/Will distinction:
Shall is used to express the simple future for first person I
and we, as in Shall we meet by the river? Will would be used
in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
Ben Collins wrote:
Let's get the ball rolling with nominations...I, of course, am running
again this year. I'm very sorry to hear that Wichert is not running for
a third term, since he is a worthy candidate for DPL (as he has proven
over the last 2+ years). Hopefully we'll see some new blood
Raul Miller wrote:
Oops, you're right -- I was thinking that last year was 1999.
Actually, I seem to have been thinking this year was 2000 when I came up
with these dates, so I think most of the dates in the paragraph below
are off by one. :-)
So the next DPL should enter office on March
Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
So, while I love free software, I don't think killing
Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
So, while I love free software, I don't think killing
John Galt wrote:
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
java and javascript, and good page layout.
What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato are
Joseph Carter wrote:
Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replace it.
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able
John Galt wrote:
However, I find konqueror (in kdebase) quite able already. It does
everything I've needed netscape to do, including ssl, cookie management,
java and javascript, and good page layout.
What was the version number of that in Potato again?
Um, the contents of potato are
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
Joey text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
I think that is what should be done in any case, if this GR
passes. We leave
Craig Sanders wrote:
the facts do support what i say. the debian constitution states what
documents may be created or modified by vote, yet fails to mention that
either the social contract or the DFSG may be so modified.
what this means is that you can't call for a vote to change either of
Adam Heath wrote:
Issue, but doesn't say a thing about modifying preexisting documents and
statements.
So we issue DFSG v2, a new document that just happens to include the
text of DFSG v1 verbatim, except for oner paragraph.
This is the same as the old Who does Debian Admin answer to? thread.
I second this amendment.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
Proposed by: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
The text of the resolution should be
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Once again, I'd like to see a Leadership Debate this year on IRC between
the 4 candidates. Rob Levin from Linux Care has graciously indicated that
he would like to moderate and I will coordinate a time and the format. I'm
hoping to do this sometime after LWE, in 1 week I
Dale Scheetz wrote:
The project secretary has already said that he has seen no proposal,
properly submitted, that anyone can act upon, according to our
constitution.
Until a proposal has been properly made to debian-vote, there can be no
proper action for a developer to take.
Who ever said
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
[contrib]
You can't modify everything it does.
How so?
--
see shy jo
Will Lowe wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Wichert Akkerman - Debian project leader wrote:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the debian.org part
makes it somehow official again. Personally, I would prefer
unofficial.debian.org.
But
The ballot will contain the options:
1) create nonfree.debian.org domain
I would like to amend this to make it say non-free.debian.org. That is
consitent with non-us.debian.org and with the current section name,
non-free.
--
see shy jo
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
--
Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software
that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the
DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian
web pages and miscellaneous other software will
Chris Lawrence wrote:
(IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should
be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution
Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social
contract. Wichert's is a mere technical change.
--
see
98 matches
Mail list logo
