Apologies for formatting of the following; I'm reading this using Gmail on
an Android tablet with a virtual keyboard.
I've read much but not necessarily all of the thread, so the following
might have been mentioned and dismissed already. My apologies if this is
the case.
Reading the thread, it s
[FWIW: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not a Debian Maintainer. I am
not someone who (currently) uses Debian (tho I subscribe to some of the
mailing lists), nor uses the software being discussed or referred to within
this bug. I don't have a horse in this race. I do, however, have Male
Answer
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
> Pirate Praveen writes:
> > On 2016, ഒക്ടോബർ 3 8:22:20 AM IST, "Joseph R. Justice" <
> jayare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>If I have misunderstood in any way Mr. Praveen's position, or if I have
[I realize there have been several messages subsequent to this, but I'm
working down the list in order of presentation by the GMail web interface.]
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
wrote:
> Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit :
>
> > package:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
wrote:
Would the following ballot be a better fit ?
> ==
> C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2'
> FD: Further Discussion
> ==
>
I'd like to state again that, if you (the TC as a body) choose not to vote
in favor o
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
>
I do think there are things we could do in this space.
> We could set policy consistent with the DFSG on what the definition of
> source code in Debian is.
>
Could the TC offer guidance, or is
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
First off, I would like to, sincerely and truly, thank you for responding
to my message. I'd been wondering if maybe they were going into a black
hole of some sort. You give me some reassurance that they are not, or at
least not entirely.
T
For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other
subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail
address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. I
am choosing to send my response here to the bug mail address, at least in
part so ther
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pa irate Praveen
wrote:
> On 2016, ഒക്ടോബർ 4 7:49:28 PM IST, Sam Hartman
> wrote:
>
> >You're asking questions that don't make sense from a p.process
> >standpoint, doing things that have a very low probability of making
> >anyone happy,
>
> A quick update, I
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] "Joseph R. Justice"
>
> > Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so
> > when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug
> > status for software whose sourc
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue.
> #839801.
>
Forgot to mention in my other response to this message...
Should this bug (839570) depend on the FTPmaster ruling request bug
(839801), or vice versa, so a
For the record for this bug / discussion:
I note Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 's mail to the Debian Secretary, CC'd to the TC
list and the FTP Master list, requesting a general interpretation of the
TC's ability (if any) to override the decisions made by various Debian
delegate teams and individuals. A c
12 matches
Mail list logo
