On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical
> committee?
An alternative to picking on one committee member would be to disband
the current committee entirely, with an explicit rider stating that the
action should not
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:05:25PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Debian kFreeBSD looks dead in the water and that won't change whilst so
> many DDs are so pro systemd -- I think that systemd was the final nail
> in the coffin.
It won't change so long as people don't work on it. In a reply to a
On 2014-11-10 7:05, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Steven,
On 10/11/2014 10:15 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
We discussed kfreebsd at length, but are not satisfied that a
release with Jessie will be of sufficient quality. W
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
> I just suddenly wondered... How come Debian lists are trolled about systemd
> and
> not the lists on FreeDesktop.org ?
Probably because instigating yet another endless discussion, and thereby
preventing some systemd proponents from getting more useful work done, is
more lik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Steven,
On 10/11/2014 10:15 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> We discussed kfreebsd at length, but are not satisfied that a
>> release with Jessie will be of sufficient quality. We are dropping
>> it as an official rele
> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes:
Josh> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start
this
Josh> thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
Josh> pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of
Josh> changing.
Regard
I just suddenly wondered... How come Debian lists are trolled about systemd and
not the lists on FreeDesktop.org ? I do not have an answer but in the short
term I am unsubscribing from debian-vote and maybe debian-devel later, until we
as a project find a way to fix our communication channels, whi
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4).
Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to
Forwarding a message "as is" from another mailing list ... very relevant
to Linux and the systemd dilemma.
begin forward...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
On Fri, 30.05.14 04:32, Michael Biebl (mbiebl at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2014-05-30 4:26 GMT+02:00
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 01:48:42AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 1
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
> avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
> Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
>
> Thank you for calling atten
Le Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> When replacing two members at a time, it might be a bit difficult to
> take that desirable balance into consideration. For example, if there are
> three candidates A - B - C in the shortlist, and A and B are basically
> clones
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which su
[Please CC me on replies.]
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sur
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
The "we are currently skeptical" wor
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
>
> /Sune
>
> [17:35:34]
> http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.lo
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
>> on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of
>> the N most senior members automati
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian,
Holger> someone who perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte
Holger> decision (instead of accepting a group decission of a group
Holger> which he is part of) and thus d
On 2014-11-09, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
> it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
> that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
> best for Debian, and that their opinions sho
Hi,
Holger Levsen:
> After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again […]
> […]
> I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian […]
Everybody please take a step back and read
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/11/msg2.html
before continuing th
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 15:08, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We have had scenarios in Debian where maintainers, tired of receiving
> bug reports about problems on a specific architecture, decided to drop
> support for that architecture from their packages.
True. Yet we didn't forbid them by GR to do so becau
On 09/11/14 at 14:42 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
> > system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
> > prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
>
Hi,
On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
> the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
> most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
> at least 4.5 years ago. N is d
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
> system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
> prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
> or other derived works exist in order to support other i
On 11/09/2014 at 05:26 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
>> I'd assume he was referring to:
>>
>>> If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if
>>> those who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective
>>> d
On 09/11/14 at 13:16 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> I too value standardization. Judging by decisions taking by other large
> distributions and upstream development, a fifth, "only support systemd
> as init system" would thus have been the most sensible option. But for
> political reasons that's
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
> But actually, I dislike (3) even more, for the reasons detailed in the
> subthread at [4]. I value standardization a lot. I think that this is
> one of the main things that Debian provides. (3) is a big step towards
> diminis
On 04/11/14 at 15:54 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
> least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
> I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
> on that specific matter.
On Tue, November 4, 2014 15:54, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the meantime, here is where I think people could help with the
> preparation work that needs to be completed before sending out a call
> for seconds (if one wants to minimize the risk of fuckups, that is):
>
> - me and Antony discussed
Hi Holger,
(I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
best for Debian, and that their opinions should be respected.)
Here is how I
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I'd assume he was referring to:
>
> > If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those
> > who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision.
>
> > If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rear
31 matches
Mail list logo
