Re: Versioned Symbols

Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Anthony On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 04:16:47PM -0500, Sam Hartman Anthony wrote: I think that we should implement versioned symbols. Anthony Uhh, versioned symbols means that programs built on Anthony Debian systems won't

Re: Referring bug #166718 and the initial groups issue to the TC

Manoj == Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manoj On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:15:00 -0500 (EST), Sam Hartman Manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj It seems to me that this ought to be local policy. Can Manoj you explain to me how the proposed solutions take site Manoj

Re: Bug#413926: wordpress: Should not ship with Etch

Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Anthony Dividing by years gives: Anthony CVEs Earliest Years CVEs/Year Anthony 43 2004 3 14.3 wordpress 63 2002 5 12.6 phpbb2 37 2004 Anthony 3 12.3 moodle 46 2002 5 9.2 bugzilla 45 2001 6 7.5 Anthony phpmyadmin

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Steve Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce Steve message. Dan documents this in a subordinate clause of his Steve qmail reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is Steve bouncing mail and at the same time, your system

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

Sam == Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org writes: Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Steve Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan Steve documents this in a subordinate clause of his qmail Steve reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is bouncing

Re: Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile

Kurt == Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: Kurt I've been wondering how to interprete that for some time. My Kurt current idea is that it would require a GR to do that. I certainly think it would be really bad for the TC to override delegates on non-technical issues. For example,

Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: I'm trying to think of a situation where you'd want m != 1 and where there would be an intuitively reasonable understanding of what was intended. Absent that, I think it's more important that things be clear and easier to understand

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

Ian, I consider myself an uninvolved party in this matter; I don't really want network-manager installed on my systems, but I'm not particularly keyed up about it. I'm not on the TC. I have been following the issue enough to have an opinion. I'm reasonably good at process issues, and think I

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Hi. I'm very pleased that you took the time to write a thoughtful response to my message. I appreciate that you're trying to work with me even though the situation is frustrating and you feel under pressure to work towards the solution

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian Ian Jackson writes (Bug#688772: gnome Depends Ian network-manager-gnome): 6. We specifically forbid anyone from introducing in wheezy, or in sid until wheezy is released: a. Any new or enhanced dependencies, or

Bug#688772: gnome Depends network-manager-gnome

Don, in your option 4B, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have the depend be something like g-n-m|wicd|no-network-manager ANd have an empty extra package that users can install if they really want neither n-m or wicd? While I don't get a vote, I think that would be a reasonable option if

Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs

Hi. I'd like to speak a bit to what tthe right answer here is rather than what the policy currently says. It's sometimes fairly annoying to move a library out of the default path and to adjust the build system accordingly. Russ did that for one of krb5's private libraries, and in retrospect, I

Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs

Phillip == Phillip Susi ps...@ubuntu.com writes: Phillip On 2/18/2013 1:21 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: 2) don't install a .so in a -dev package. Phillip That might be a signal a human can understand, but the Phillip build system won't catch it. The goal is to make sure

Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs

Guillem == Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes: Guillem On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 20:30:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: with the current packaging tools, you tend to end up producing the .shlibs files in order to manage cross-package dependencies within a single source package

Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs

Phillip == Phillip Susi ps...@ubuntu.com writes: Phillip Not having the .pc file and headers etc in the -dev package Phillip would prevent the build of anything with a decent Phillip pkg-config enabled build system, so that could work with a Phillip tweak to the policy to allow

Bug#727708: systemd jessie - jessie+1 upgrade problems

Adrian == Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes: Adrian Yes, it is speculation that other new features (or even Adrian bugfixes) might appear in the kernel and might become Adrian mandatory in systemd between jessie and jessie+1. Adrian But that is a risk, and it is a risk that is

Bug#727708: systemd jessie - jessie+1 upgrade problems

Adrian, I'm frustrated when I read your message because you put words in my mouth that I did not speak. I never said that Debian should allow systemd to dictate policy for multiple distributions nor did I say that Debian should allow one upstream systemd maintainer to dictate decisions for Debian.

Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces

Hi. There seems to be a significant conflict within the TC about what the L options mean. Speaking as a maintainer who could be affected by this and as someone who would sponsor a GR to override one interpretation butnot another, I'd request that the TC clarify what it means with the next

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian Anthony Towns writes (Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init Ian system resolution): It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have

Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces

Colin == Colin Watson cjwat...@debian.org writes: Colin I think Ian and I are agreed that L excludes 1), and permits Colin 3). On reflection I think I agree that L has to exclude 2) Colin as well. Hmm, I am reading Ian as against 3. I request that TC members work with Ian on the

Bug#727708: Please clarify L options with regard to interfaces [and 1 more messages]

Yeah, I now understand what you mean by L. I'll be writing more in the form of a blog post and probably GR text. I will send a pointer to the TC as I think I may be hitting close to something that Russ may find useful. I'll refrain from trying to convince the TC because you have enough voices

Re: Call to fork

debianfan == debianfan debian...@hushmail.com writes: debianfanI would like to propose forking Debian if the ctte debianfan committee selects systemd It's with great hesitation that I jump in here, and I know what I'm doing is wrong. I hope I've earned enough credibility over the

Understanding the current state

Hi. There's been a lot of mail in the last couple of days and I'll admit to a bit of uncertainty to where things stand. I'd appreciate it if people would correct me if I've gotten anything wrong: 1) Bdale's resolution is waiting for a casting vote to be declared. It may be possible for a TC

Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.

When I've found myself trying to avoid normative language in situations like this I end up with statements like: It is important that all packages support smoothe upgrades from Wheezy to Jessie , even when the system is booted with sysvinit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#741573: Two menu systems

Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Steve On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was brought to the TC. The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what the right

Bug#741573: Two menu systems

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that there isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections raised in the discussions and not addressed, then please say that. If you have not

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian And from a practical point of view, I would prefer to make a Ian choice that significantly eases collaboration with the GNU Ian Project to one that slightly eases collaboration with Ian proprietary software vendors.

Bug#746578: libpam-systemd to flip dependencies - proposal

josh == josh j...@joshtriplett.org writes: josh I wouldn't necessarily suggest using this as an argument josh against the proposed resolution. Instead, I'd recommend josh making sure that cgmanager is just as harmless under systemd josh as systemd-shim 8-4 currently is, by

Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering

Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Charles Le Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a Charles écrit : Specifically, I would like to ask Debian Developers to contribute (positively) to TC discussions when relevant, in order to help the

Thanks for all your hard work

Hi. Thanks for your hard work. Over the past years you've put in a lot of work in the TC. I think you were one of the forces that really pushed the TC to be a viable decision making body. You seemed to really care that when issues were brought to the TC, they were considered and a decision made.

Re: Bug#762194: On automatic init system switching on upgrade

Has the TC asked whether any of the stakeholders want help? I understand why absent options you may not want to do something. But is the release-team and the d-i team and other stakeholders happy with the status quo? I think the answer is yes. However, you've had a number of situations recently

Bug#766708: Processed: Re: Bug#766708: breaks multiarch cross building

Ron == Ron r...@debian.org writes: Ron I'd be kind of sad if that stopped being possible again for the Ron final released version of Jessie, and we had to skip yet Ron another release before being able to do this on Debian again. Ron It may not be the best and final answer, but

Bug#766708: Processed: Re: Bug#766708: breaks multiarch cross building

Dimitri == Dimitri John Ledkov x...@debian.org writes: Dimitri Comparing squeeze and jessies - have things regressed? if Dimitri yes, how? As far as I expect, the way one uses debian Dimitri source packaging to produce cross toolchains has not Dimitri changed, nor has been

Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on wheezy-jessie upgrades (thoughts)

Thanks. I found this post of your to be really thought-provoking and useful and an example of the sort of discourse we should strive to when discussing these issues. I think the discussion of switching default inits in the future is something to particularly consider. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Scheduling CTTE Meetings

Andreas == Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes: Andreas * Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [150317 19:50]: On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Don Armstrong wrote: Given that we have new members, if anyone has a conflict with that time slot, and would prefer that it was moved, I've

Re: Scheduling CTTE Meetings

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Don On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: Two hours later would be a problem for me on Thursdays although not other days. One hour later is starting to be an issue but I'd generally be able to make it. I'm

Re: Call for Votes for new CTTE Chairman

Andreas == Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes: Andreas * Sam Hartman (hartm...@debian.org) [150311 13:18]: So, I don't feel that I have the information I need to make an informed decision on this issue, so I won't be able to cast a ballot. Fortunately, it doesn't

Re: Scheduling CTTE Meetings

Unfortunately, the two times I've tried to reach https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/ctte_march_meeting/ today, I've never been able to establish an https connection. I never complete a TCP handshake. The only conflicts I have are Wednesdays from 1300-1600 UTC and Thursday starting at 2100 UTC. --

Re: Call for Votes for new CTTE Chairman

I will not be able to vote on this. First, as I've mentioned I have great respect for Don and look forward to working with him as chair. I find though that if further discussion were on the ballot, it would be my top ranked choice, exactly because I don't know what kind of chair we need, because

Do we want to submit a sprint request for debconf

A couple of weeks ago I noticed mail to d-d-a talking about sprints at debconf. I'm wondering whether we want to try and spend a day at debconf or debcamp exploring how we want to work together, how we want to resolve issues, working on internal procedure, getting to know each other, that sort of

Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down

Hi. I'm sorry it has taken a while to write back to you. I asked how the TC could help and was confused when I read your message. I provided a couple of options how we might be able to help and you neither selected one of my options nor provided your own. So, I wasn't sure what you were

Policy Process and Rough Consensus

Steve, in one of the TC meetings last year, you made the claim that the policy process was not a rough consensus process. I recently read process.txt.gz from the debian-policy package. That document (admittedly dated after #741573 was submitted) claims the opposite. I don't know what the

Re: Policy Process and Rough Consensus

hi, thanks for an excellent mail. I've read it and agree with your analysis. To the best of my understanding you were elaborating on what I wrote, not disagreeing with it. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#741573: Menu Systems: Thoughts about Next Steps

Having reviewed the policy team's process.txt document and having reviewed Charles's comments, I'm much less sanguine when I think about the approach for resolving the menu system discussion that we discussed last Thursday. Keith may well have an approach that improves over both the status

Bug#769972: Read before Voting: Note from hartmans about new member ballots

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Don ===BEGIN Don The Technical Committee recommends that Sam Hartman (hartmans) Don be appointed by the Debian Project Leader to the Technical Don Committee. Don A: Recommend to Appoint Sam Hartman (hartmans) B: Further Don

IS hartmans a good fit for the TC

Hi. When I submitted my application to be considered as a TC member, it was with excitement, hoping to work together with great folks to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of past TC work. From the discussions I saw there seemed to be agreement both that there was really great technical

On Consensus

Tollef == Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Tollef Consensus are at least two things: «Are everybody Tollef ok/happy/ecstatic about this?», and «Are somebody unable to Tollef live with this resolution». Those are different things, and Tollef I don't think we're entirely

Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down

Adam == Adam D Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: Adam Hi, Making no comment on the remainder of the mail: Adam On 2015-03-05 10:38, Michael Tokarev wrote: And since I can't do my work, I'm stepping down from being busybox maintainer, and am kindly asking the release

Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Tollef == Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Tollef ]] Sam Hartman A major advantage of this approach is that it can happen from within the aptitude project. Christian has the technical authority to implement this. He's asked for review of the social authority

Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Didier == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes: Didier Given the situation (an unresponsive Daniel, a proposal from Didier people with powers to push the situation forward), I'd be Didier more inclined to say yes to Christian, without a formal Didier resolution. Given

Moved up menu system in the agenda

Folks, I will only be able to make the first part of the meeting because I need to head to the airport. I'd like to request that we discuss the menu system bug during a part of the meeting I can attend so I can get feedback on my comments sent to the bug. To that end I've pushed a change to the

Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

I just arrived in the UK this morning for a series of meetings, and I expect it will take one sleep cycle before I'll be awake enough to draft ballot text, but I'll attempt to do that in the next couple of days. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Sorry about the Delay

Hi. My meetings in the UK ended up requiring 100% of my mental focus for the last few days. Lots of fun technical design work and project planning, but very little time available to actually write up a ballot option. I expect to catch up on TC business Saturday the 16th. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Proposed for your consideration and checked into git for your editing: Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1(5)): 1. In #750135, the technical committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the aptitude projectp. He had been actively committing until his

Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Tollef == Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Tollef My suggestion is basically to say yes to Manuel: Make him Tollef the maintainer of aptitude and ask the Alioth admins to Tollef reinstate him as an admin, removing Daniel. Manuel is Tollef clearly interested in working on

Re: Polling open for next CTTE Meeting (and default in future)

l = M = N g = h = i = j = d = e O z c b = a pgpoomumf7ONb.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Poll for next CTTE Meeting (and default in future)

Don, I'll be voting based on my general availability. I am unavailable Wednesday-Friday of that week because I'm going to a spiritual retreat, so it's fairly likely I'll miss this meeting. However, most of those times would generally be good for me and I think it's more important to pick times

Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Didier == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes: Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1.5): 1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project. He had been actively committing until

Re: Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Tollef == Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Tollef I think this is fine and we should vote on this before even Tollef more time passes. Opinions? I'll call for a vote on June 15 unless people either seem to believe earlier is better or I hear objections. However, between now and

Regrets for Tomorrow's Meeting

Hi, folks. I will be at an event in maryland that starts just around the time of the meeting so I'll be unable to attend. I hope I've been more clear in my communication about the menu policy bug. I'd really like to see us call for any objections to the proposal on debian-policy and amongst

Bug#741573: Investigation of the bug log

You are copied on this message because you raised objections noted by the policy editors during the discussion of menu policy or seconded the proposal in #707851. The TC is currently evaluating a request to review that proposal and the process surrounding it. If you seconded the proposal, I'd

Bug#741573: Investigation of the bug log

Lisandro == Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer perezme...@gmail.com writes: Lisandro Hi Sam! A long time has passed since then and I should re Lisandro read the full and extensive bug log to assert whatever you Lisandro want to ask. But I can be sure on one thing: at the time

Bug#741573: Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Don On Wed, 27 May 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes: Bdale I hear you, I just don't have any idea what to do differently Bdale on this specific issue in response to knowing how you feel Bdale

Re: Regrets for Tomorrow's Meeting

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Don OK. So assuming this is the case, does option B in the draft Don now represent your view? Or is option A sufficient? Assuming that the discussion plays out as I suspect, I'd probably vote a=bzc If it's clear from the log that we thought

Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Sam == Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org writes: Sam I here-by call for a vote on the following text (option A); the Sam other option is FD. I will be out much of the next two weeks Sam so if the vote becomes resolved I'd appreciate it if someone Sam could step in and announce

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

Aron == Aron Xu a...@debian.org writes: Aron I don't hold a view on whether we want lz support in dpkg/dak, Aron but it could be a pity if we really involve CTTE for such an Aron issue. To me, it's sorta abusing the escalation process if Aron every individual developer raise an

Re: Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

I'm fine with this proposal. I slightly prefer it to my original draft and hope others prefer it significantly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Bug#741573: Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others

Kurt == Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: Kurt On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:19:07PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: [moving back to the bug, because we're starting to discuss the issue rather than a TC communications matter.] Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes

Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others

Hi. During the conversation of #741573 last meeting, and while reading the log, I felt really frustrated and disappointed. I would like to be heard and understood, and when I read what Bdale and Don are saying, I don't think that they are connecting with some issues that are really important to

Bug#741573: Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others

believe that they didn't have consensus rather than just jumping to a conclusion. I don't think we need to vote for that if we have internal rough consensus, although I'd be fine voting on that if we wish to do so. However: Bdale Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org writes: Bdale I really think

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Don On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: What about just adding Keith's proposal to the ballot, and let the Condorcet magic act? Don This has sort of been my plan; I just have not had enough spare Don cycles in the

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: While we're not overturning anything in the sense of an override here, I think we owe an explanation for our actions, and I feel really strongly about that. Don Ideally the patch and its rationale should stand alone without Don

Bug#636783: Bug#795857: Bug#795855: Bug#636783: Bug#795855: #636783 - New bugs for individual issues

Bdale == Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes: Bdale Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org writes: I'm just sying having seen it used once I'd rather decide never to go there again. Bdale For what it's worth, I agree. I'll note that for this to be fair we need to be able to push back

Bug#795854: Constitutional Amendment: Fix duplicate section numbering (A1)

Didier == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes: Didier Le lundi, 17 août 2015, 14.57:18 j'ai écrit : Ian wrote a full GR proposal in 20996.60469.968631.307...@chiark.greenend.org.uk ( [636783_supermajority/propose-numberfix] in our git repository and I've attached

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Unless someone objects I propose that the following text also be included in option b: Using its power under §6.1.5 to offer advice: 1. The Technical Committee suggests that the maintainers of the Debian menu package support translating .desktop files of packages which do not

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian Sam Hartman writes (Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and I think the key area where we differ is that I would give preference other things being mostly equal to upholding the work done in debian-policy. As I

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian 1. The TC - not the policy process, not the policy editors, and Ian not the consensus on debian-policy - has the ultimate Ian responsibility to set technical policy. (Constitution 6.1(1)) Ian So in the TC the

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Charles I made efforts to keep the wording mild, but I think that Charles it was an error. From your attiude as the lead person behind the Debian Menu, it is clear that Charles it has no future. For one decade, you have

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

of that, though. (Also, I felt like the proposal was a good path forward, which doesn't make me a particularly unbiased judge of consensus.) Sam hartman Speaking only for myself pgpXXbUrHHGVF.pgp Description: PGP signature

Regrets for Debconf

I'm an owner of a small company. We had a managers meeting yesterday and realized that there's a lot of design ideas in my head related to a number of new projects. If I go to debconf, it's going to significantly gum up the works in a period where we have significant upcoming deliverables. So,

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Bill == Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: Bill On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:08:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: In March of 2014, Charles Plessy asked the Debian Technical Committee to review one of the policy editors decisions to revert changes to how policy talks about

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Charles Le Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:56:49PM +, Sam Hartman a Charles écrit : Bill == Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: Charles Also, the question is not whether the FreeDesktop menu Charles should be described

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Charles Le Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +, Sam Hartman a Charles écrit : Bill, in his role of policy editor said that he believed there was not a consensus. Charles Hi Sam, Charles I think that what you

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Josselin == Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Josselin Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org wrote: Bill, in his role Josselin of policy editor said that he believed there was not a Josselin consensus. He cited a specific set of messages that he Josselin believes were

Bug#741573: Russ's role

Bill == Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes: Bill On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:34:47AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: You said: Hi. As a matter of fact finding. Russ's message, which Charles sites implies to me that Russ was swamped and didn't have time to do the commit

Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian Sam Hartman writes (Re: Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Ian Consensus): Having such serious objections that have not been adequately considered means you don't have rough consensus at least in the ways I

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would look at the restatement at the bottom and help me make sure I'm understanding the technical implications of the proposal we're considering. I think I may be following what Ian's saying. Ian I

Re: Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Hi. Your recent post to Ian is inappropriate and not consistent with the rules of conduct we've established for our communication. Multiple members of our community have talked to you about this issue. Please stop. owner@bugs and listmaster copied, although I will not request any specific

Bug#741573: Comparison of Options AB and D

Hi. So, after working with Keith yesterday on his option, I think I have a much better understanding of what the tradeoffs are. I'd like to present these to the TC as we're about to vote. I'm ignoring ballot option C (afirm the status quo) in this. I'm also treating options A and B as the

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Steve On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 09:13:33AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: If we adopt Keith's proposal without updating policy 9.6--we retainIs the SHOULD have menu entries for all command line apps, but move the metadata format

Bug#741573: Comparison of Options AB and D

Nikolaus == Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes: Nikolaus On Aug 29 2015, Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org wrote: Option D goes further. Option D requires that packages drop their traditional menu entries if they ship .desktop files. (That's done on a per-application

Bug#741573: Comparison of Options AB and D

Nikolaus == Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes: Nikolaus A. This comes very close to design work which the CTTE Nikolaus should not be doing. If there's a conflict between two Nikolaus crappy designs and the CTTE is asked to rule, then you Nikolaus should pick the less crappy

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

> "Keith" == Keith Packard writes: Keith> Do you think the reworded version is easier to understand in Keith> the context of the overall process? That was my major concern Keith> here. I think a bit. My big question is whether you think we'd still be able to

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

OK. I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone now who needs more time before a CFV.

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes: Don> I think attendance at meetings as well as participation in Don> threads, drafting, and voting is a requirement. Don> I think that this amounts to between 1-6 hours a month of work; Don> hopefully towards the low end of

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

I'd like to have a discussion about what we want from TC members before we make a call for nominations. The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members to have available for the TC. i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a high probability of being

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

> "Keith" == Keith Packard writes: Keith> Thinking about this tonight, I've rewritten option D as AB + Keith> patch. Keith> As you can see, this makes packages shipping menu and Keith> .desktop files for the same application buggy, makes all Keith>

Bug#741573: CFV: Debian Menu Systems

In preparing this CFV, I have made one change to option D: I replaced encouage with encourage because I believe that fixes a typo. I'd like to call for votes on the following resolution: Whereas: 1. The Debian Policy Manual states (§9.6) that 'The Debian menu package provides a

Bug#741573: CFV: Debian Menu Systems

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> writes: Sam> In preparing this CFV, I have made one change to option D: I Sam> replaced encouage with encourage because I believe that fixes a Sam> typo. Sam> I'd like to call for vote

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes: Josh> Assuming that the "often results in FD" holds true, and that Josh> this doesn't encourage snap judgements, this seems like a very Josh> good idea to me. I think that except in very special circumstances coming to

  1   2   3   >