On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> My main problem with this text is that while it may fit to the current
> realities, it makes no sense from a formalistic point of view, as large
> parts of the text seem to imply there was no way for non-packagers yet
> and there were no
On 15/09/10 at 16:49 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Lucas Nussbaum 2010-09-15 <20100915141740.ga21...@xanadu.blop.info>
> > * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
> > non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
> >
> > Additionally, the Debian project acknowledges that th
* Charles Plessy:
> I wonder why not simply inviting the Debian Account Managers to
> accept the long term contributors as DDs, even if they to not
> maintain packages? Would an amendement be welcome?
Seems reasonable. (I'm among those who believe that voting rights are
more fundamental than upl
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:45:52AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > > I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded.
>
> > Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I
> > can tell this wa
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:08:50PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away
> > > for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new
> > > complete d
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:17:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Before pushing it forward as an amendment, I'd like to hear opinions about
> this: we have had problems with GRs proposing orthogonal options in the past.
> This amendment proposal discusses two things that are orthogonal (giving full
> u
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:51:51PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Stefano's DPL platform is actually quite clear on the subject:
> After seeing the results of this choice, it will always be possible to
> change the procedure, especially if a later DPL is elected with a
> platform that goes more to
Le Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:03:01PM +0100, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
>
> OTOH, if we pass a GR that looks like "we'll give them upload rights" (because
> it just says "they are DDs") and then they aren't given upload rights some
> people might feel upset that they voted for it. Just because it's no
On Thu Sep 16 14:58, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I don't think we should open a second way to get upload rights to the
> > archive,
> > so I would *not* want to remove that part.
>
> So do you think that if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive”
> is
> not present, the GR will preven
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded.
> Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I
> can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably
> accept this or something si
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away
> > for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new
> > complete draft here shortly thereafter.
> So I'm not considering this currently as an
11 matches
Mail list logo
