On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
First of all, I would
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
motivation?
I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.
The purpose of
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The
purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL
meet DFSG.
I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome
of such
Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the
archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this
GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are
not the target, the AGPL is.
It is not seperate. You do want to override a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Please make clear what is part of the proposal and what is not.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Joseph Nahmias wrote:
1 - What is an appropriate reserve level for the project?
2 - How should funds above that level be allocated?
3 - Should these decisions be made by the DPL acting alone, or
should that be left to the project membership
6 matches
Mail list logo
