With paragraph 3 removed or reversed, I would also vote no.
(More specifically: I've not seen any good technical reasons,
yet, to override this commit access decision.)
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> As aj told us he didn't delegate it to us, but rather thinks that we are
> able to decide about it anyways, I think the "Access controls"-paragraph
> needs to be changed, and I ch
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 15:57]:
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 14:58]:
> > Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> > ..."):
> > > Ok, fine with me. So, I propose now the followin
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:13:10AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think these are all political decisions implemented through
> technical means. I think we can review the mechanisms used for access
> control (eg, we could with insist on the use svn-over-ssh instead of
> svn-over-ssl or vice versa)
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060607 12:13]:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > Access controls to source code repos hosted on .debian.org seem a
> > technical decision to me, so plausibly within the commit
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> Access controls to source code repos hosted on .debian.org seem a
> technical decision to me, so plausibly within the committee's domain. We
> can, of course, decline to consider the q
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 07:02:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 3. Access controls to source code repositories are not something in the
>regular domain of the Technical Committee. However, in this case the
>decision was delegated by the Project Leader to the Technical
>Committee as ap
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060606 23:17]:
> On 6/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Given that we have a very straightforward method of determining what AJ's
> >intent was (i.e., asking him), I would rather we did that than pass a
> >resolution that preserves this needless d
On 6/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that we have a very straightforward method of determining what AJ's
intent was (i.e., asking him), I would rather we did that than pass a
resolution that preserves this needless doubt.
This seems like a good idea.
Has AJ been asked, or
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:08:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > I don't. I think delegating a decision needs to be a bit more explicit than
> > that, it's my understand
On 5 Jun 2006, Andreas Barth outgrape:
> WHEREAS
> 1. Sven Luther complains that he has been deprived of commit access
>to debian-installer's svn repository after he stepped back as
>installer powerpc maintainer.
> 2. The Debian Project Leader has decided to uphold this particular
>
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 14:58]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > Ok, fine with me. So, I propose now the following resolution:
> >
> > WHEREAS
>
> Excellent, thanks. I call for a v
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> Ok, fine with me. So, I propose now the following resolution:
>
> WHEREAS
Excellent, thanks. I call for a vote and vote yes. (Note that you
have two paragraph 3's. We can fix that ty
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 14:17]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > "there is some doubt" reads for me as non-native speaker as "basically,
> > the DPL didn't intend, but we
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> "there is some doubt" reads for me as non-native speaker as "basically,
> the DPL didn't intend, but we cannot prove".
I think that `there is some doubt that foo' us
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 14:08]:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> ..."):
> > I don't. I think delegating a decision needs to be a bit more explicit than
> > that, it's my understanding that
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> I don't. I think delegating a decision needs to be a bit more explicit than
> that, it's my understanding that this was just AJ telling Sven what his
> appeal options were. He can of c
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 07:31]:
> The resolution is still in order, though.
Ok, than we should just proceed, I think. :)
> > WHEREAS
>
> > 1. Sven Luther complains that he has been deprived of commit access to
> >debian-installer's svn repository after he stepped back as
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 07:02:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060515 07:41]:
> > Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo
> > ..."):
> > > sorry for top-quoting. but network is here at debc
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:02:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> He said (in private) that the the way i communicated had nothing to do with
> it, and i understand that this is exactly what is reproached to me in this
> whole mess, so i have no idea what is reproached to me here.
Communications invo
20 matches
Mail list logo
