) as chairman
Guy Maor:
has not yet voted for a chairman
Ian Jackson:
has not yet voted for a chairman
Klee Dienes:
has not yet voted for a chairman
Raul Miller:
I'm voting for both myself and Dale Scheetz as chairman
Raul, you don't seem to have expressed
Branden Robinson writes (bug report dispute resolution request):
Had Herbert bothered to pay any attention at all, [...]
[If Herbert were to downgrade] this bug report to a wishlist item (which,
given his attitude, [it] would indicate that he has no intention of ever
addressing it),
Given
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bdale Recommendation):
Raul Miller writes (Bdale Recommendation):
I vote to formally recommend Bdale Garbee as a technical
committee member.
Absolute, I vote in favour of this too. (I've been away in SF and
then to a con, so I've had no access to my home email
Jaakko Niemi writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list: unmoderate, please):
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
Moderation taken off, but posting is still limited to subscribers
only. If we need to remove that too, let me know.
Yes, please. And, your mailer is doing something very odd
Bdale Garbee writes (suXscribe):
That proves the list is working, even if Bdale isn't on it, at least :-).
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firstly, I'd like to apologise to everyone here for not stepping up to
the job of Chairman as quickly as I ought to done. From now on I'm
rearranging my schedule to ensure that I'll read and deal with
tech-ctte mail at least twice a week, which should prove a useful
response time.
So, having
Is there any software on lists.debian.org that could bounce all HTML
mail sent to debian-ctte ? debian-ctte is getting a hideous amount of
spam. It's clogging our mailboxes and making the archives unuseable.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Branden Robinson writes (Technical Committee: decision on #119517?):
Over six months ago, on 2001-11-14, Bug #119517 was submitted to the
Technical Committee for a ruling. No member of the Technical Committe
has participated in any public discussion of this bug (at least in the
bug logs or in
Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone):
Ian Jackson:
As I understand it, the supposed principle which is being applied is
that it is unacceptable to have a binary in the package which depends
on libraries not mentioned in Depends, and that Recommends or Suggests
are not sufficient
Anthony Towns writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 01:34:26AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
But, the idea in the policy manual is that a `must' is a rule for
which there are not expected to be exceptions; it doesn't touch on how
damaging a breach of the rule
Anthony Towns writes (Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?):
I think everyone agrees that it's a Bad Thing to have packages like this,
the question is really whether it's completely unacceptable to ever do it,
or if having packages with a single fairly trivial binary and different
Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, I can see that you might want to avoid too much discretion being
exercised by bug submitters.
Discretion is not quote how I would describe bug severity
escalation, but yes, bug severities ought
Anthony Towns writes (Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?):
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:31:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In this particular case, you got me. In the general case,
though, I still think my arguments have merit.
Right, but that's kind-of the point: in the
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, that doesn't mean that the severities need to remain set by
those objective criteria. Someone other than the submitter,
with a greater overview of the whole package or distribution
-binding recommendations or
opinions.
h3Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions/h3
ul
li2002-01-31 Appointed Ian Jackson as chairman, following Raul's
resignation from the post. (In favour: Dale Ian Manoj Raul Wichert;
none against or abstaining.)
/ul
NB that decisions from before the 31st
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. However, there are circumstances where it is less of a bad thing
than the available alternatives, so we can't make a hard and fast rule
that it should never be done that way
Are the rest of you there ? Manoj and I have been having an extensive
discussion about #119517, and about the use of the BTS, and I sent
round a number of other mails, but there have been no responses.
Please read the discussion, or at least skimread the summaries, and
get involved. The
This discussion makes it clear to me that the decision here is not
technical, it is a question of process. As such it should be made by
the project leadership and/or bug tracking administrators.
I therefore hereby propose the following resolution of the Technical
Committee:
We note that
*
The current state of this seems to be:
* Everyone agrees that it's not ideal for programs to fail in this
way. There is disagreement about whether it should be always strictly
forbidden in every case, or whether there are other tradeoffs
etc. that might justify it. (I can't quite make out
Branden Robinson writes (Re: developers-reference: patch re: replacing files
on the ftp site):
I still think it would be a good idea if the Technical Committee
documented its decision per 6.3.3.
You are right, of course. However, there are probably better things
we could be doing than going
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
I therefore hereby propose the following resolution of the Technical
Committee:
(Full resolution below.)
No-one has commented to say they object to us punting on this one, so
I hereby call for a vote on the resolution I proposed
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package):
We haven't ever been here before, but it seems to me that the best
course of action would be to formulate a resolution overruling the
pcmcia-cs maintainer's decision and vote
Jason Gunthorpe writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
No-one has commented to say they object to us punting on this one, so
I hereby call for a vote on the resolution I proposed on Monday. If
anyone votes against, or proposes an amendment
On the 6th of May I wrote:
Please save as a file called `something.html' and review it and let me
know what you think. If no-one objects, I'll ask the debian-www team
to put it on the website as http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte/.
There were no comments, so I'll talk to the www people.
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package):
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
resolution for this issue:
Can we please wait with a vote until July 5? I'm
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
The Technical Committee has passed the following resolution, regarding
the dispute surrounding Bug#97671 and the proper use of the Severity
tag and other BTS features:
...
We therefore recommend that
* The bug system
Paolo Risso writes (EN-IT translator):
I'm Paolo, from Genova - Italy. I drop you these few lines in the case you
need my help for your fantastic project (of course, for free).
...
I'm a 6 years free-lance translator from English to Italian, [...]
I have forwarded your mail to our Italian
I use my casting vote again to make Yes win.
Thirdly, according to A.6(8) we check for the quorum, which is two
according to 6.3(1). There were at least two votes which prefer the
winning option (A) to the default option (FD), so the quorum is
reached.
--
Ian Jackson, at home. Local
Anthony Towns writes (Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671):
I still haven't had a chance to properly think about the whole serious
and -policy and whatever issues, so I'm still not making substantive
comments about this.
Right, well, no-one seems to be telling me what to do, so I'll
reassign
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package):
Here is my vote, though couched in terms biased the other way:
I'm sorry you didn't like my wording. But, the discussion /was/ about
whether to split the package and whether to
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: Vote! on supposedly controversial tech ctte question
Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separate package):
My reason for wanting further discussion is that I'm willing to let
the maintainer have some discretion, but believe that it's only
the final decision on
technical disputes in the Debian project.
Currently, the active members are:
* Bdale Garbee
* Ian Jackson (chairman)
* Manoj Srivastava
* Raul Miller
* Wichert Akkerman
There are also three inactive members:
* Dale Scheetz
* Guy Maor
* Jason
Jason Gunthorpe writes (Re: Technical committee composition and activity):
FWIW, I wasn't able to get to my PGP key when I had time to make a vote.
It's been a trying week. Lame excuse..
Oh, hello. Damn, I just sent out my draft with you down as
`inactive'. Do you want to join in again, then
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition):
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
Why not [automatically convert users' configs] ?
Lots of nastiness: users might currently be logged in and suddenly
have files changing underneath them. NFS /home will also break things.
I hope
Raphael Hertzog writes (Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition):
I urge the technical committee to take a sensible decision (ie one of
the three solutions proposed in my initial mail) quickly. [...]
You're right that we are taking too long. I'd like to propose that we
hold an IRC meeting
Herbert Xu writes (Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]):
...
Who is supposed to make these decisions about how many people are
interested? Should I ask you every time this comes up?
If you end up getting into a serious enough dispute about
Raul Miller writes (Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]):
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 01:37:43PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What I am unsure about is whether I have the grounds to cause
my judgment to override the maintainers in this
I think all that's going to be said has been said. So I hereby
propose the following resolution and immediately call for a vote.
1. The Technical Committee has considered the question of whether
VESA fb support should be compiled into the default kernel, as
requested in Bug#161931.
2.
My apologies, but I got caught out when an RBL-style blacklist
operator (of a blacklist shut down by a lawsuit threat) decided to
suddenly start blacklisting the whole internet. I thought I was
keeping an eye on the relevant places where such things might be
announced, but apparently not closely
Raul Miller writes (Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for
console):
[details of proposal elided]
I think this proposal matches the best information we have available
and I vote for this proposal.
So, would everyone else please vote ? If you don't have an opinion or
don't
I would like to refer bugs #164591 and #164889 (these are merged, and
I'm the submitter of the latter) to the committee. Below you'll find
my summary of the issue. (In the summary, `you' refers to the package
maintainer.)
I sent Adam (via the BTS) this summary on the 25th of October, and
asked
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#164889: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in
output):
I would like to refer bugs #164591 and #164889 (these are merged, and
I'm the submitter of the latter) to the committee. Below you'll find
my summary of the issue. (In the summary, `you' refers to the package
Ian Jackson writes (Committee members please check you got my test):
I've just sent a test message to debian-ctte-private. To avoid any
problems with the call for applications that I'm going to send out,
please let me know within the next few days if you didn't get my other
test mail.
Right
Clint Adams writes (Re: Bug#164889: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in
output):
Rather than Debian shipping its own md5sum, why not just rely on the GNU
textutils md5sum(1) in coreutils or one of the not-yet-packaged md5(1)
utilities from *BSD, depending on whether or not one wants the '-'
Jason Gunthorpe writes (Re: Committee members please check you got my test):
Yes, I probably can, if you tell me where the archive you are having
problems is located.
I had a conversation on IRC with Josip Rodin, who asserted that there
was an archive readable to all developers, as a result of
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for
console):
I think all that's going to be said has been said. So I hereby
propose the following resolution and immediately call for a vote.
Thanks everyone for your contributions, and thanks to the voting
committee
Herbert Xu writes (Re: Processed: 161931 etc. reassign):
This will be fixed in the next release.
Thanks.
Regards,
Ian.
John Obenauer writes (Debian on tablet PCs?):
Do you know whether Debian can be installed on the new tablet PCs, and
if it could accept input from the new screens? If not, do you know
whether anyone has started a project like this, such as making a Linux
device driver to read screen input?
Anand Kumria writes (Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - shut it down):
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:05:41PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Please make [EMAIL PROTECTED] undeliverable.
Done.
Thanks.
The Committee is using [EMAIL PROTECTED], a simple alias, and
The only problem with the alias
Bdale Garbee writes (request for status report):
Hello. You are receiving this email either because I've delegated some task
to you explicitly as Debian Project Leader in the past year, or because your
name is listed at
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
Sorry for the delay
Anand Kumria writes (Re: new moderation system):
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 05:11:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
But, debian-ctte should not be moderated.
Could you please unmoderate it, but make it member posting only ?
Do you mean restricted to tech-ctte members only? Or only those
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Our Secretary seems to be under the impression [...]
Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already
called for a vote (twice
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
* Since we are in something of a hurry, [...]
I think we should not interfere in whatever solution the
developers come up with, since we are not actually involved as a
group in the solution process.
We've been
Getting myself back on the ctte list has reminded me of the two other
things we have had on our plate for a little while: bug #164591
(md5sum output format) and the call for new members.
The md5sum output format thing is my bug report, so I'll write up a
summary soon.
Re the call for new
This bug has been sitting on our todo list for some time, mainly
because I've been too slack. My apologies. As promised, I'm now
picking it up again.
I've gone and reread the bug reports #164591 and #164889, of which I'm
the submitter of the latter, and I've written a summary of my
position,
Raul Miller writes (Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output):
It's probably not unreasonable, however, for programs designed to work
with specifically this md5sum interface to expect the interface to remain
the same.
When it has already changed more than once (Debian has changed from
Scott James Remnant writes (Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in
output):
Just stepping the bug aside for a moment; I'm unsure whether it as
appropriate for the chairman of the tech-ctte to make a recommendation
about a bug they themselves filed. It seems to give you a power to
.
13. We note that the issues surrounding sha1sum are similar to those
surrounding md5sum. We have not been asked to rule on sha1sum but
expect that if the question arose our decision would be the same.
--
Ian Jackson, at home. Local/personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Raul Miller writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
with.
However, it's possible for people to think that two options
are acceptable, even
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
amended a ballot A:B:FD count against A in A-vs-B due to the the
^can
Ian.
Ian Jackson writes (Proposed resolution Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious `
-' in output):
Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not
going to be lacking in participants, and no-one has criticised my
draft, so I hereby formally propose the resolution below. If I don't
Jason Gunthorpe writes (Re: Proposed resolution Re: md5sum FILE produces
spurious ` -' in output):
I do not object to your draft, if it comes to a vote I will support it.
Thanks.
However, I fail to see the point of all this. As far as I can tell making
this decision, or not, will have no
Raul Miller writes (Re: Proposed resolution Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious
` -' in output):
Maybe we should do a bit more on Anthony Towns' release policy issue,
first.
Perhaps so.
Several weeks ago I wrote:
Anthony, do you still want a formal statement of this from the whole
committee
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to
clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather
resolution
It seems that my previous mail, while having a comment addressed to
Anthony in it, wasn't sent to him :-(. Oh well. Anthony, do I take
it that you still want the TC to make some kind of formal decision
here ?
Is there a bug report for this issue ? Anthony, if you would still
like a formal
I hereby propose the following resolution:
WE THE DEBIAN TECHNICAL COMMITTEE NOTE THAT
1. The Technical Committee is not merely a mailing list, but a
formal institution in the Debian Project, established by the
Constitution.
2. People sometimes mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (d.o =
Raul Miller writes (Re: (forw) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Posting on the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]):
I can probably live with things the way they are now, as far as spam
filtering.
You mean that you think the current level of spamfiltering would be
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
[stuff about voting methods]
I think I've lost the plot now. I can't remember what the original
point of this subthread was. I think I was trying to convince you
that allowing options equal the default option to pass on
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
It seems that my previous mail, while having a comment addressed to
Anthony in it, wasn't sent to him :-(. Oh well. Anthony, do I take
it that you still want the TC to make some kind of formal decision
here ?
Um, Anthony ? Can
Thanks to everyone for your contributions, and to the voting committee
members for your votes. The Technical Committee has passed the
following resolution:
1. The Technical Committe has considered the questions raised in
Bug#164591 and Bug#164889, concerning the output format from
I've just posted a message to the debian-vote list about a bug I think
I've found in the Condorcet/Cloneproof-SSD GR's amendments to the vote
counting arrangements.
I didn't include you all in the CC list of my posting because you
probably don't want to get flooded with mail discussions about it.
I'm posting my substantive reply to the debian-ctte list (only) -
please find it, and follow up, there.
Ian.
Pascal Hakim writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
Speaking with my listmaster hat on, that's certainly possible, but I
don't believe it will help non-subscribers or subscribers posting with a
different address all that much. I guess every little bit helps however.
Is it
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
I deal with spam on about a dozen debian mailing lists, and I
see this list as little different. I heartily recommend crm114 to
people who want to eliminate spam from their inboxes.
Presumably crm114 is a spamfilter of
Pascal Hakim writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
I take back what I said actually. The signature checker is very brittle,
and it already stops a number of valid messages from people who want to
post on the gpg-restricted lists such as debian-devel-annouce or
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
It runs from procmail, so basically:
* receive the post on stdin
* return accept/bounce flag via returncode
Blars Blarson writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
* the system being used is heavily overloaded, so few
Ian Jackson writes (Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64
port]):
Pretty much all of these lead me to conclude that we should resolve
along the following lines:
I was slightly unclear about whether that was a formal proposal, and
in any case didn't call for a vote
Adam Heath writes (Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output):
Please don't do anything to resolve this bug, until I have had time
to write a proper reply.
How soon can we expect that to be ?
Adam Heath writes (Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output):
There are issues not
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
Do you want to store the original message on the server? That might grow
to become a large database. It could be pruned daily of course.
Indeed. The original message wouldn't have to be kept very long.
Perhaps we should support
Stephen Stafford writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
This looks like a fairly good plan, however it will mean that
virtually all the spam (which the point is to try to minimise) gets
bounced back to the (probably) forged return-path, thereby sending
spam to some poor unfortunate.
Reading debian-vote, I think it would be helpful if we stated our
opinion formally. There still seems to be some dispute.
I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a
vote. I'm hoping we can get enough of the TC to vote in favour to get
an official resolution well before
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
Reading debian-vote, I think it would be helpful if we stated our
opinion formally. There still seems to be some dispute.
I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a
vote. I'm hoping we can get enough
Raul Miller writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
I've been trying to decide what I think about that resolution.
If it's difficult to decide then perhaps I should draft a simpler
version that makes it easier :-).
Ian.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
I don't think the ctte should be recommending how to vote. [...]
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
I agree with the first part of this. [...]
I strongly feel we should not be in
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:36:08PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
We could demand SPF listing or c/r, until junk all has SPF.
I'm strongly opposed to SPF, mainly because the technical details
are insane. See for example what I said in RISKS:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.18.html#subj10
Ian.
Raul Miller writes (release policy):
Attached, below, is AJ's release critical policy, in the context of
sarge.
I'm thinking we should ratify it, as is. As soon as possible.
Gads, do we really need to ratify the entire text of this document ?
I'm thinking we should ratify a changed
Thanks to Raul, Bdale and Steinar for comments and suggestions. At
Bdale's request I have deleted the old paragraph 17 (which
contemplated the rpvm maintainer closing their bug). So ...
I hereby propose the following resolution and call for an immediate vote:
It appears that everyone agrees
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: Bug#266837: rpvm_0.6.2-1_hppa: FTBFS: relocation
R_PARISC_DPREL21L can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with
-fPIC):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
16. If the rpvm maintainer is of the opinion that there is no change
needed to rpvm
are not yet
recorded here, and there have not yet been any since then.
h3Formal recommendations and opinions/h3
The committee has not yet issued any non-binding recommendations or
opinions.
h3Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions/h3
ul
li2002-01-31 Appointed Ian Jackson as chairman, following
Josip Rodin writes (Re: Technical Committee web page):
Done, thanks. It'll appear at http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte shortly.
Thanks. Could you make some links to it, somewhere, possibly ? For
example, http://www.debian.org/intro/organization could do with
`Technical Committee' being
Thanks to everyone for your contributions, and to the voting committee
members for your votes. The Technical Committee has passed the
following resolution:
The Technical Committee have considered the question of the name of
the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port. We resolve that:
* In our opinion
Sam Hartman writes (Formal request for review: [Sam Hartman [EMAIL
PROTECTED]] Referring what kernel-images to build to the technical
committee?):
Hi. I posted the following message to debian-devel last night and
have received agreement with the summary and apparently (it was not
explicitly
Work are sending me to Asiacrypt, which is in Queenstown from the 1st
to the 5th of December. I'm also going to be taking some time in NZ
for sightseeing etc.
So firstly, I'm going to be away from my email for quite a bit. I may
have some access from NZ, but hotel connectivity is strange and my
Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air. And the situation is rather
unfortunate.
It seems to me that:
* The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
release of sarge as-is.
Therefore:
* The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social
contract. If
Raul Miller writes (testing committee email (and minor essay)):
I'm sending this message as a test message, because my MDA has been
changed, and I want to make sure I still get committee email.
:-).
Despite this (or perhaps because of this) there has been a singular lack
of people saying
I thought I should let you know, so that you hear it from me: I have
accepted a job with Canonical, working on Ubuntu.
This shouldn't significantly affect my Debian packages or my
participation on the Technical Committee (although the last week or so
has been quite hectic and I have neglected to
A little birdie tells me that we can now permit posting to debian-ctte
based on GPG signatures as well as subscription to debian-ctte. This
would be very good, and I'm sure that the rest of the committee agree
with me that this should be done straight away.
For now accepting any valid signature
Manoj Srivastava writes (Removing long inactive members from the technical
committee):
I am formally proposing a resolution to remove the following
members from the technical committee:
o) Wichert Akkerman, since he has indicated that he is no longer
actively involved with the
Raul Miller writes (Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices):
I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason for the 600
permissions, nor the reason to avoid using the disk group.
I basically agree, but I'm going to try to play devil's
Just in case the notifications from the BTS, and CC's so far, haven't
made this clear:
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Technical
Committee is considering complaints about the default permissions of
device nodes made by devmapper and lvm2. See bug #316883 and the bugs
1 - 100 of 880 matches
Mail list logo
