On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:46:16AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The Debian Prject clarifies that all privileged roles held on debian.org
machines are to be considered delegations by the DPL according to the
constitution, ยง
as long as we trust ourselves not to elect DPLs going nuts
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:40:43PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
There has also been
ambiguity on the constitutional position of infrastructure teams as such,
particularly those that predate it.
[...]
Debian developers resolve the following:
[...]
As I read it, the developers
Hi,
On Thursday 17 April 2008 13:11, Josip Rodin wrote:
We acknowledge the previously existing ambiguity, and then continue on
a fully constitutionally defined procedure to decide things that resolve
any such ambiguity.
What's your dilemma again? :)
That it's not fully spelled out.
I mean,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
We acknowledge the previously existing ambiguity, and then continue on
a fully constitutionally defined procedure to decide things that resolve
any such ambiguity.
What's your dilemma again? :)
That it's not fully spelled
It seems to me that after sam's emails this morning, this proposal is
frankly unnecessary. Does your proposal bring anything that sam's
emails didn't? It's clear that at least one DPL feels that the DPL is
already empowered to do the things you are proposing.
--
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
It seems to me that after sam's emails this morning, this proposal is
frankly unnecessary. Does your proposal bring anything that sam's
emails didn't? It's clear that at least one DPL feels that the DPL is
already empowered to do
This one time, at band camp, Josip Rodin said:
Ad hoc interventions are just that. We need to have a crack at solving the
underlying problem, and that means trying to stop depending on a myriad of
unknown variables.
My point was that your proposal, underneath quite a bit of verbiage, in
the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josip Rodin said:
Ad hoc interventions are just that. We need to have a crack at solving the
underlying problem, and that means trying to stop depending on a myriad of
unknown variables.
My point
Holger Levsen wrote:
As I read it, the developers would - if this GR would be accepted as it is -
acknowledge, that some people seem to think they act - within their Debian
roles - outside Debians constitution.
And since we acknowledge this from now on, this practice becomes fine and
Hi,
On Monday 14 April 2008 21:11, Josip Rodin wrote:
Proposed general resolution - Project infrastructure team procedures
Debian developers acknowledge the following:
[...]
There has also been
ambiguity on the constitutional position of infrastructure teams as such,
particularly
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:46:36PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
* Each infrastructure team has not added any new members according to
the rule above, but has had to mark at least two members as latent
in the same period, has to accept at least one new valid candidate.
The second
Hi,
This is take five - Stephen Gran sent me several suggestions for rewording
and stating things explicitly in private mail. I've spelled a few more
things out, and reordered some of the text so that it's clearer what's going
on. I've also moved some paragraphs from the acknowledgement section
On 14/04/08 at 21:11 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
* Each infrastructure team has not added any new members according to
^
isn't there a missing that here?
the rule above, but has had to mark at least two members as latent
in the same period, has to accept
One small typo fix. diff is attached.
And a question on the following text:
* Each infrastructure team has to accept at least two valid candidates
every two years.
* Each infrastructure team has not added any new members according to
the rule above, but has had to mark at least two
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:41:43PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
One small typo fix. diff is attached.
Thanks. (And to Lucas.)
And a question on the following text:
* Each infrastructure team has to accept at least two valid candidates
every two years.
* Each infrastructure team
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:46:36PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
The second rule is meant to address the situation where a team is losing
members to inactivity, but two years haven't passed yet (otherwise the first
rule would have been applicable) - such a team should accept one new valid
16 matches
Mail list logo
