Hi Ian, I all the patents debian team,
We were discussing about the including of the geant4 package in debian.
Since there is an anti-patent point in
http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html , we are not sure
that it is possible to include geant4 in the science package. Please
Christophe Hugon writes (Re: Geant321 and geant4 in science package):
Hi Ian, I all the patents debian team,
We were discussing about the including of the geant4 package in debian.
Since there is an anti-patent point in
http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html , we are not sure
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
Russ Allbery writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for
Debian):
As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the
project to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
I think we would all
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
That would certainly seem to be the case, but it would be illogical for
a group who is happy to be overridden with a lower requirement to be
prevented from doing so!
Quite.
I think it's perfectly possible for a TC
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
Resolution on a simple majority.
I don't think
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian):
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc
[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ]
Hi!
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
premature and
I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet,
and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically
grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work.
Let the TC do their work. They're coming up on a vote, and they may even
suggest a GR.
This GR is
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:42:39PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet,
and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically
grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work.
Let the TC do their work.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 01/27/2014 08:39 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for
sponsors now.
please stop wasting people's time and let the TC do their work instead.
Thanks.
- --
Bernd Zeimetz
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
Resolution
15 matches
Mail list logo