On Thursday, June 26, 2014, Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:50:38PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I see Keith has committed a draft to git. As discussed, I disagree
with this approach. This amounts to nonconsensually abolishing
someone's work when it is
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting.
As agreed on
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: Bug#636783: minimum discussion period):
If I understand this correctly, either there is a 5-day minimum
discussion period, *or* there must be unanimous consent of the committee
to waive the minimum period?
Yes, that is my proposal.
I don't think this is a good idea,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:51:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
A libjpeg-turbo to become default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
B libjpeg8/9 to remain default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
FD
I vote A FD B.
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
I would accept increasing the required number of stoppers to two
(which is also the quorum for passing a resolution).
That's certainly preferable to one.
And, secondly, that the ultimate outcome of separate votes on
semantically related
Sorry, this partially-finished draft sat in my box for a month. Sending
now.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:03:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
We have discussed having a minimum discussion period for TC
resolutions.
I still think this is necessary. I think 72h is about right.
In the IRC meeting
6 matches
Mail list logo
