la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
much. Oh well... :-)
Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
What's your opinion on membership procedures?
Last year there were some rough proposals for
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:50:52AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Other potential usages of Debian moneys are bounties, to which I'm not
opposed in principle. However, they should obey to very specific
rules. The first one is that no one already contributing to Debian
should be authorized to
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
Hi again Charles!
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be
Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too
that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that?
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny
Hi Steve,
First I plan to produce a
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I
Hi,
and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size
On Sat Mar 21 15:49, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too
Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
developers to sponsor
Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:04:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
period or to overwrite
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are
Hi,
as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
Resolution.
8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 -
The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
accurate and up-to-date listing of
On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as
title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.
And
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be
authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you
encourage a similar position for bounties offered as part of the Google
Summer of Code, for example?
No. Who is
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as
title, especially the
Hi!
Joerg Jaspert schrieb:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
much. Oh well... :-)
Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
What's your opinion
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
Resolution.
8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 -
The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
packages shipped in the distribution are not required to
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
want to override the FD (?)
This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
Except I'm not sure this would be legal under non-profit law, unless
you're very careful. There's an issue that funds can't be used to pay
someone the equivilent of a 'wage' in this way.
US non-profits can hire employees, but I believe there are conflict
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too
Hi,
On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
Resolution.
8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 -
The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
packages shipped in the distribution are not
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
to calculate Q.
Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying 20 out of 1000
should
On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Some of these packages are very well maintained and others.. well,
bug numbers sometimes speak for themselves. For these packages we have
that cool text on the PTS pages: The package is of priority standard
or higher, you
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal,
instead of proposing it to the developers?
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote:
8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 -
The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
8 - 8
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:34 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright
still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all
authors.
IMHO the policy is already clear on it. Furthermore, I don’t think
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
(basically, what we can
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:04 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a
method.
Call it extortion if you want, but this is probably going to happen to a
number of large packages unless this requirement goes away.
--
.''`.
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
Resolution.
Have we really reached the end of the normal informal discussion
process on this issue without resolution? Proposing a formal GR now
seems very premature.
If you need to
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:47:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too
that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that?
[1]
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:41:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be
authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you
encourage a similar position for bounties offered
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus..
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=-
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek spoke thus..
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
this, I propose we
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
this, I propose we amend
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org writes:
And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses. Some of
them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very
clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary
packages. Some don't have this requirement in
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=-
43 matches
Mail list logo
