On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the
wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we
need done and that doesn't involve uploading packages. Not that I have
a better metric,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially
2008_003 were handled.
Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even
though it is
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the
wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we
need done and that doesn't involve
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
discussion and/or voting of
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
for it.
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:05:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So looking through the nominations, platforms and the current -vote
threads, I'm left wondering if any of this actually matters. Only
two candidates running, no IRC debate or rebuttals added to the
platforms,
[ Don't worry, you
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:44:05AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I also saw mass updates of Vcs-* fields by a recent contributor which
implies as many entries in debian/changelog, yet very few real packaging
experience associated to all those uploads.
The data would be useful but we need
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an
I was requested to forward the following mail by Sven Luther:
- Forwarded message from Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr -
From: Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr
To: Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org, listmas...@debian.org
Cc: Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved
lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at
the moment. Would you support using donations to fund one or both of
those?
This is also an issue
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
quality is obviously
Not that it makes much difference to 'further discussion', but:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence about the correct level.
Replace clause c with c) if general
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
What about:
General Resolution sponsorship requirements
sounds like package sponsorship requirements to me. therefore i suggest
to be extra clear and change it to 'Requirements for General Resolution
Sponsorship'.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3,
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Something else that would be interesting to store in UDD is the full bug
logs, as it would allow to list the comments that someone posted to
bugs. That's expensive, but maybe we could only store a subset of
information, like the From, Date, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
I understand the furstration
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:25:34PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:20PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum writes ([Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR
sponsoring):
I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two keep
things as is options
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project.
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
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26:59AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
Seconded!
I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already.
Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win [1]?
/me also watches Kurt scrambling to keep up with the amendmends, seconds
and rescinds and would like to note that he seems to be
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
minimum support for an opinion.
It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many
Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win?
That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I recommend to
the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes:
Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win [1]?
One of the primary objections to this proposal is that it will be too hard
to get the new required number of seconds. It seems quite reasonable to
put
Ben Finney wrote:
A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
person prefers that option to appear on the ballot.
Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence
with Fun!
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes:
Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence
with Fun! to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on,
you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you […]
Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:17:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters
don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
detail, but the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
38 matches
Mail list logo
