Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au writes:
The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance
or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would
act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the
systemd maintainers was far from
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a
proposal.
Or, if that does happen, it should force that member(s) to recluse themselves
from voting on it.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tuesday, 18 de November de 2014 15:01:42 Matthias Urlichs escribió:
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a
proposal.
Or, if that does happen, it should force that member(s) to recluse
themselves from voting on it.
From my
Hi,
I think that everyone will agree that we are having a big crisis about
the role of the TC in Debian. What saddens me deeply is how some of us
framed this as a Debian vs the Technical Committee fight. The
Technical Committee _is_ Debian. If we feel it's malfunctionning, it's
our problem as
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Specifically, I would like to ask Debian Developers to contribute
(positively) to TC discussions when relevant, in order to help the TC
get a complete understanding of the issues, their consequences, and
possible resolutions
On 11/16/2014 10:28 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
In the absence of that, it seems quite understandable to
interpret this as yet another attempt by the TC to undermine systemd.
It's nothing but that exactly that, not more, not less. The decision
which init system Debian would use was already made
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
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (= 8-2)
should be replaced by
systemd-shim (= 8-2) | systemd-sysv
A
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (= 8-2)
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the
ship!
Great Work!
This demonization of the Technical Committee for doing their
]] Anthony Towns
On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
I hope that he doesn't
actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers.
... this is the TC providing technical guidance when
asked to do so; and if the TC
12 matches
Mail list logo
