Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
First of all, I would be interested to know if it is a point of
divergence between the candidates. Then, if there is interest for
such a discussion, I would like to encourage you to develop your
ideas on this subject, especially on what you can do as a DPL or DPL
assistant.
Of course I'm not diverging with myself :-)
What I would do if the times will come, is to get in touch with NM
people. My proposal would be to add a join a team entry as one of
the *recommended* step in our join checklists.
That would be a first way of making the default I've mentioned in my
platform becoming reality. Applicants would not be required to do so,
but most of them will consider the option. The benefits would be
several:
- more sound recommendations when the time comes for DDs to support
DM/DD applications
- more (implicit, de facto) testing of the social skills of
applicants, as opposed as technical skills *only*
- give a reason to teams to declare and organize themselves
in structures like wiki.d.o/Teams.
In the end, that page can become an entry point where applicants
look for ways to help that matches their interests. IMO it would be
way better than pointing to the absolutely chaotic WNPP pages, they
just scare newbies away.
I hope that all this explain a bit more my position on the topic.
If not, feel free to ask more detailed questions.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and motivation? I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL meet DFSG. I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome of such determination, and I think it would be uselessly confrontational to draft it as overriding them. My view is that the FTP masters are delegated the power to decide which software belong in the archive at any given time. They are also required to make this determination in a limited timeframe and with limited resource than might be insufficient for the most complex issues. As long as this proposal is not calling explicitely for packages such-and-such to be moved in or out of the archive, it does not override them. Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are not the target, the AGPL is. (For those of you who believe in Montesquieu separation of powers, the FTP masters delegated power is executive while a GR under 4.1.5 is legislative. For the others, thanks for reading so far.) Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org (Please CC me) Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL meet DFSG. I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome of such determination, and I think it would be uselessly confrontational to draft it as overriding them. I believe that you're mistaken in your belief that it's less confrontational to override their decision without saying so. However, I will defer to the FTP team; if they see this distinction and agree with it, I withdraw my objection. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are not the target, the AGPL is. It is not seperate. You do want to override a decision from us, which is that the AGPL is fine for packages in our archive. You do want Debian to decide that this is not true and the AGPL is not ok. Fine, have it, if you find seconders, but clearly name it after what it is please. -- bye, Joerg Some NM: A developer contacts you and asks you to met for a keysign. What is your response and why? Do you like beer? When do we meet? [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: Dear developers, I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration. Please make clear what is part of the proposal and what is not. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Joseph Nahmias wrote: 1 - What is an appropriate reserve level for the project? 2 - How should funds above that level be allocated? 3 - Should these decisions be made by the DPL acting alone, or should that be left to the project membership deciding collectively? manoj -- The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public license. If it breaks then you get to keep both pieces. (Copyright notice for the chat program) Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
