Robert Millan wrote:
[...] the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
Why not remove the package from testing, same as any other release
critical bug?
Or if you are worried about unstable containing non-DFSG stuff, why not
remo
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:21:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this
> will be implemented within the next few weeks.
Joerg,
in your answer to Aurélien, you wrote that your announcment was "a new policy
to get implemented". Bu
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> But like I said, let's proceed with the GR, I don't mind, it's merely
> disappointing.
By all means., No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill
any motivation ganneff m
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>> I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):
>
> Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
> rewritten #2 (in addition t
>> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
>> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
>> > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
>> > [ ] Choice 3: Furt
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
> > can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that
> > we'll also have this 2 week discus
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
> can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that
> we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR?
It's the reverse. The sponsorship o
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:20:30PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Hi Neil
>
> Thanks for the prompt clarification.
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands unt
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
>
> I don't
Hi Neil
Thanks for the prompt clarification.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Be
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab
also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
I don't understand the difference between those two.
--
.''`. martin f. kraff
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or is Manoj is still the secretary and did he delegate something to you?
> What got delegated exactly in that case?
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technol
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
> > send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.
>
> You have a total of 3 times "proceedural"
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers
Is this GR trying to force the dak developers to implement a way for
this to be done without any intervention from the ftpmasters, or is
this just shorthand for "any developer may make a
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership r
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:21:41PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>
> > IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
^^^
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:11:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
> >
> > Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
> > Votes must be re
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
> > a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
> > c
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> (...)
> (one of the people who could ruin this vote is going away for a busness
---><
> trip this week, and the other one is new at this task).
> (...)
> manoj
You meant "run", huh ?
--
Swis
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on members
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
> send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.
You have a total of 3 times "proceedural" instead of "procedural" in this
mail.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
> delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
> not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
> is actually §8.3:
>
> 8.3.
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says:
Because it takes time to set up a vote, and it requires
attention from the vote taker at the beginning and end of the vote, and
the times reflect the prep time required (one of the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership refor
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
> a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
> called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
>
Hi,
On Monday 27 October 2008 20:36, Robert Millan wrote:
> - We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> out - for this reason, we will
> - treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process
> *and*
> - deliver
> - firmwa
On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008
Why should we wait unt
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):
Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
Option 2 (allo
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:36:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > (Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
> > complies with the DFSG" a no-op?)
>
> The license for a sourceless blob can be GPL or BSD, which are licenses
> that comply with the DFSG, or it could be any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose the following General Resolution. If you wish to second only one
> or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
> can account them separately.
>
> Option 1 (reaffirm
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:22:57PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> >4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> > out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as
> > a
> > best-effo
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL
Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
> code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it. So what was
> your point again? B
Hi all,
As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
as per 4.2.2 of the constitution.
Attached below is the draft ballot for
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>
> > Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> > ~~
> >
> >1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
> best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> necessary for
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:46:14AM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I'm willing to stake my reputation on betting you are _not_ a firmware
> engineer. Your are totally wrong if you think all firmware blobs can
> be replaced by human readable source.
>
> There is hardware, for which to function, will alwa
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> --
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:39:27PM +, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.1734 +0100]:
> > > The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.
> >
> > You are wrong. The changes I propose are all well within the DAMs
> > competency
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11551 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are
suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)].
I do not understand wh
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:13:22PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
> > The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers,
> > decides:
> >
> > The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel
also sprach Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.1734 +0100]:
> > The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.
>
> You are wrong. The changes I propose are all well within the DAMs competency.
Please back up this claim a formal statement or delegation
specifying your
On 11551 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
>> The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
>> mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are
>> suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)].
> I do not understand why we need to do
also sprach Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
> The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, decides:
>
> The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
> mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are
> suspended
Hi,
I second the options quoted below. That's the first one for the
pre-lenny GR, and the first one of the post-lenny GR. (While I agree
that this is important, I don't think we should set procedures in the
SC; if this is to be written down in a foundational document, it must be
the constitution
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We ackn
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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 rele
Hi,
I propose the following General Resolution. If you wish to second only one
or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
can account them separately.
Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
problem in long-term. There
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition
>> of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple
>> options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal exp
I propose the following General Resolution. If you wish to second only one
or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
can account them separately.
Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~
1. We affirm that our Priorities
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > Moin,
> > >
> > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > When ever a pac
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Moin,
> >
> > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
> > > 60 days o
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:27:28AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition
> > of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple
> > options, or not. I consider a resolu
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:42:08AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Should we add something to the GR to address this problem? Or simply
> explain the reasoning behind the GR by different means, during the vote?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to explain our respective POVs separately
(and in f
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:30:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
> > opinions would start, with focus on convergence.
>
> This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a
On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
> opinions would start, with focus on convergence.
This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a] discussion.
--
bye, Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
> enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
> resolution is:
> --
>
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:31:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That makes 1 proposer + 6 seconders = 7 sponsors for that GR. We would
> need 3 more for the decisions to be put on hold immediately.
A seconder is a sponsor, so you'd need 4 more. The original proposer
cannot also sponsor the item:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> --
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> --
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status
On 27/10/08 at 10:35 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> --
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Giv
Hi,
The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
resolution is:
--
- Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
debian-devel-announce
mailing list (Mes
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition
> of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple
> options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal expression of
> the opinion or will of an o
Le Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:42:08AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> I fear that this GR will look like "vote yes if you don't want change."
> I'm personally fine with changes to the membership process. But I want
> them to be decided after an healthy, public, discussion, and probably
> also a v
On 25/10/08 at 10:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have integrated the changes suggested by Frans, Robert, and aspell
> (wdiff attached).
>
> Here is the amended proposal:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:27:24PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware
> > can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't
> >
68 matches
Mail list logo
