[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
Matt Zimmerman said:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 22:20]:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be
written down publically in the appropriate place.
I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:14:25PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
The only package that I may not be qualified for is Jikes. And that's
because I don't know the internals of JVM and Java opcode...
or *all* the internals of Jikes... I'm thinking of filling a RFA: on
jikes. But it is still better than
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I
just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too):
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=tag
What does mean patch has 3339
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 22:20]:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be
written down publically in the appropriate place.
I
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I
just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too):
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:04:16 +0100
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I
just
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
breakdown in the communication process.
Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix
it yourself?
IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they
do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer
I think you're dreaming.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:56:08PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored
as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it
happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources).
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as
James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is
Manoj. And that's it.
Marcelo Magallon said:
You mean you actually think James can even consider the possibility of
handing the management of the keyring over?
Well, he should. He'll have to someday, such as when he dies. (Unless
he is actually immortal, or more likely if Debian is utterly destroyed
first.)
Andreas Barth said:
Yes, I can see the problem. However, it would have helped me much if
this policy would have been clearly stated at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/ (should I open a bug,
or can it be fixed without?).
The rate of things getting fixed without having bugs reported
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:07:11PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
According to the Debian Constitution, he only has mastery over the
keyring because he's a Delegate appointed by the DPL.
Yeah, like that's ever mattered. I can't actually remember someone
saying for this period of time
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Trivialities such as people
refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind.
This strikes me as one of the *best* reasons to deny someone. If someone is
unwilling even to trust Debian with their real name, then why
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as
James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is
Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a
responsability, and
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names
jump to mind.
This strikes me as one of the *best* reasons to deny someone. If
someone is
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:55:14AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names
jump to mind.
This
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:58:17AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only
way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine
* Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 05:35]:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package
maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a
percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 05:35]:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package
maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a
percentage of old
* Adam Majer
| My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| direct emails about those bugs.
I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or
so) old, which is waiting for upstream to
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Adam Majer
| My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| direct emails about those bugs.
I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 11:20]:
* Adam Majer
| My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| direct emails about those bugs.
I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is
* Matthew Palmer
| On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| * Adam Majer
|
| | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| | direct emails about those bugs.
|
| I guess
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Adam Majer
| My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| direct emails about those bugs.
I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days
* Goswin Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| * Adam Majer
|
| | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| | direct emails about those bugs.
|
| I guess I'm MIA, then,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and
should not be ignored.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:41:20 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the group is growing.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:41:20 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named)
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]:
Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free
software, which we work hard to promote.
Because it would be a waste of work, time and energy.
Not if
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if the projects have different goals.
If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is
a waste of time and effort.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:14:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if the projects have different goals.
If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is
a waste of time and effort.
I
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if the projects have different goals.
If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is
a waste of time and effort.
Not if a new projects succedes
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the
process are you claiming is broken?
I wasn't aware my name had to be on the list to recognize that some have
been there for years.
--
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:17:24AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Martin Schulze is also the Press Contact, so I certainly hope he has good
communication skills!
/me goes and yanks Joey's chain some more :o)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:44:11AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
If he doesn't want to, the DPL should really do something.
Such as...?
I think he's saying that the DPL should 'delegate his DAM power' to
somebody else. The DAMs are after all officially appointed by the DPL...
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:11PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only
way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine
applications.
BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:36:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Totally true. That's e.g. the reason why announcing the removal of old
RFPs didn't appear in debian-devel-announce where it would have
belonged - the submission was rejected by the moderators for the
formal reason I'm not a
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:31:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I didn't know that only DD could post on d-d-a. But to be honest, I
would have expected that one of the list managers would adopt my
message without much words if it is ok to post. As this didn't happen,
I interpreted it so
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:55AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the
process are you claiming is broken?
I wasn't aware my name had to be on
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:40:21PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Adam Majer
| My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for
| his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to
| direct emails about those
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:55AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of
the
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in,
rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the
developer's part.
So,
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears
broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any
conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That
has nothing to do with just or
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
anything in particular.
Actually, I think it does. They should either be
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:09:15 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are
in, rejected, or the
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:11:47 -0500 (CDT)
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears
broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any
conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years.
Steve Lamb wrote:
Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected
within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in,
rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the
developer's part.
If it's the same rand function I
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:31:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Erm, no, read my message again. The fact that there are people in the
queue that long, regardless of reason, is an indication that something is
wrong. If the people are there because the DAM doesn't have the cajones to
say
I
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's
not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that.
Ian Jackson could also see how it could :)
Debian Constitution 2.2.2:
2. A person may hold
Matt Zimmerman said:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and
Peter Makholm said:
Organizing a project from scratch can turn out to be the only way
change bureaucracy and infrastructure that may make the goal harder to
reach.
True. But it's a lot of effort, and it it's *NOT* the only way, we
would therefore prefer to try the other way first!
--
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
anything in particular.
Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
breakdown in the communication process.
If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
anything in particular.
Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
breakdown in the communication process.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:40:03PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's
not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that.
Ian Jackson could also see how it could :)
Debian Constitution 2.2.2: the Leader
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for
upstream to rewrite the program.
When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix
it yourself?
He said rewrite.
--
2. That which causes
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Himself, for example? He already does work on that front, he's
certainly a trusted developer judging by the vote results (and
there's no such record for any other officers, mind you), and in fact
he said he helped James add some
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James.
The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's
it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
But splitting the entire project is a freedom I would hate to see
exercised. In my opinion, things that threaten a project split to
happen should be avoided before the split
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]:
Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free
software, which we work hard to promote.
Because
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 18:35]:
Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored
as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it
happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources).
[policy of d-d-a]
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they
do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer
[...]
People should maintain packages they are qualified to maintain
Well, I see you're taking your own
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:41:20AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2
(or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
problems and the group
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
And neither does the fact that some have been there for years
indicate anything in particular.
Here is where you're entirely and
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
Sometimes you get really hairy bugs that even qualified
developers would have trouble to fix... then you need to holer
for help until somone helps... Isn't there a
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they
do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer
[...]
People should maintain
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then
the fact that this information is not published on the website does
not indicate that the
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:22:01PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then
the fact that this
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:17:24AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Martin Schulze is listed as the other DAM member. He's also the Press
Contact, so I certainly hope he has good communication skills!
And the Stable Release Manager, and a member
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
Steve Langasek said:
I don't think it irrelevant that those clamouring loudest for the DPL
to do something to fix the situation are people who don't actually have
a say in the outcome of DPL elections. While I'm not happy to see such
long DAM
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only
way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine
applications.
BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:28:15PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Why does a non-DD need to find
a DD to sign and forward the mail to dda? Why cant he sign it himself
and post it to the list? The message has to be approved by the moderator
anyway.
Mail to debian-devel-announce is
74 matches
Mail list logo
