Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> We're now into the campaigning period. We have 5 candidates this
> year:
> - Jonathan Carter
> - Sruthi Chandran
> - Brian Gupta
Dear Debian Project Secretary
I seem to be having difficulty counting to 5.
I only get as far as 3 when counting the
2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman :
> And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
> wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
> ways.
This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose.
I support Ian. I do not second yet
something we
might stand a chance of implementing, rather than abolish it entirely,
but I'm currently unable to second Don's excellent amendments. I beg
other DDs to consider them favourably.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http:/
if they can be tackled without them.
Hope that makes sense - I'm in a rush.
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available
? ;-) )
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http
maybe aren't really much about the DPL vote.
I'd welcome a DPL who led work on this aspect of the project
management. I suspect that until there are a couple of minor tweaks
to the project, it's difficult to reach sufficient consensus if the
DPL's against it.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef
we
can't take ourselves because we don't see the walls in the same places
as the FSF, we can't and it's rather frustrating to try.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer
for your attention and I await your reply with interest.
Best wishes,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org
So you are already free to do it by delegating. A GR would be used
to overrule your decision, but, as you already noted, there is
already a general consensus on the issue.
Equally, the DPL is empowered to start a GR to do this. I'm very
happy to see a DPL
Colin Tuckley co...@tuckley.org
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
PS leather, rinse, repeat, I guess ...
I think you mean lather (it means to wash with soap).
Yeah, but leathering (hitting hard with a belt as a punishment) may
also be an appropriate action for someone considering standing for
DPL!
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
[...] my personal conclusion that this time could be
better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these
practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose
to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus.
As will
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and
all
its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...]
Wow, that's
Joey Schulze j...@infodrom.org wrote:
Luk Claes wrote:
It's of course possible to load firmware from extra media during
installation or install the right package (from non-free) when booting
back to an older kernel (to have network again) to be able to use the
network with the new
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the
proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
required number of seconds returns to K
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q
-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
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian,
What does this mean? Paying someone to evaluate debian? I don't get
this ...
As I understand it, charities currently pick their operating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
Public License are not free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
effects. I
Carsten Hey c@web.de wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:53:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
To be valid, a Debian Developers can send a signed email in which they
nominate themselves, to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: [...]
I'd like to raise the question of whether these IRC debates are really
something we should have. I know Don and the panelists put a lot of time
and effort into making the debates happen, which is part of why I ask the
question: is it really worth
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
People who'd like to help run the debate and/or collect questions can
also volunteer with a message to -vote.
I'd like to do either, as previous years.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
I believe that most debian developers ignore discussions of possible
GRs like the current one, until/unless they look like reaching the
required number of seconds to trigger a vote.
It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
simple: please could all DDs who watch
, consensus in that time.
OK, so this proposal means people would spend more time on each GR.
I feel that's probably a bad consequence.
MJ Ray wrote:
[...] also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
I'm not sure what you aim to imply there? Are DDs more like sheep
than 'people' are or vice versa?
Neither
Ron r...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
popular DDs be able
Michael Goetze mgoe...@mgoetze.net wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
to reduce GRs, having
another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
you want to see resolved. The statement I second this proposal
only
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
wider DD population
Johannes Wiedersich j...@ph.tum.de wrote: [...]
The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from
that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they
are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1].
I like this suggestion.
Thiemo Seufer t...@networkno.de wrote:
Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...]
hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this
area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should
^
.. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others.
Just
to modify the RFC documents.
Hope that explains
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Anthony Towns a...@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I did not mean this to be argumentative. A rhetorical flourish,
yes. The quote is from a US politicial, and the analogy between the
constitutions and bill of rights was
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form
(which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated
e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
Suggest restructuring to simplify:-
To cast a vote,
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
I deferred voting following reports of error bounces.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily
coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population.
Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a
myriad of other problems that Manoj has
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as
not blocking the release. [...]
It seems that
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
the DFSG.
In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
of component, software,
Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored,
No, you are not being censored.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill
any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of
non-packagers into Debian. [...]
I hope it won't kill that
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
I've added assistantNeil McGovern under Secretary to
webwml/english/intro/organization.data
Hope that's OK,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
You think it speaks ill of people when they are demotivated by
people saying nasty things about them, or ascribing horrible motives to
them? Amazing. Me, I would be liable to just break out some beer and
watch some movies rather than
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition
of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple
options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal expression of
the opinion or will of an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
debian-devel-announce
mailing list (Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer
Status;
- Given the importance of defining how the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:39:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Debian's people (i.e. debian-legal and so, even equiped with all the
TINLA and IANAL disclaimers) are a well regarded and quite well
informed body in this regard.
Well-regarded by whom? I
and decide) such a statement about what's affected their
project and users.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
===Begin resolution text===
The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla
Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks
from a distance. This is an issue that has
that, there's a way to remove or limit the power in future.
There have been frequent questions about (and misdescriptions of)
debian's position about using trademarks to bolt down free software.
I believe developing an agreed statement on this is a good move.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster
===
Regards,
- --
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software.
It's actually outdated. Mozilla's Firefox build don't
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we
could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person
without any serious problems.
We
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray dijo [Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:15PM +]:
Well, for example, Marc Brockschmidt has spent time writing a
platform, canvassing and campaigning, which he suggested he would not
have done if an acceptable candidate had already nominated
The first go at the DPL Debate Logs have been uploaded to
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/irc/dpl-debate-2008/
Please let me know if there are any obvious errors.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
One thing I will commit to (right now) is to encourage people to
ignore (or even better, castigate) nay-sayers who have nothing more to
contribute to Debian than poisonous tabloid-style rhetoric and
negativity.
Can the candidates demonstrate an
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's
great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step
independent double-checking in that task.
Honestly I don't know. But if it's
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:27PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
You served a term as Assistant Project Leader. What are the
differences between the job you did then and the job you would
do as DPL?
Mainly, I would expect to push some more high-profile
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a
document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers
could understand why the applicant was given an account, if they saw
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It's well known that small
task (when they take less than 5 minutes) are usually best done on the
fly instead of accumulating them. [...]
Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. See
Ganging your mosquito tasks
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. [...]
I must admit that I've read some Getting Things Done related literature
and that this organization method usually suggests to do small tasks on the
fly
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Why is no one responding to the fact that the last ingestion of
new blood did not solve the problems? [...]
Myself, I have not yet confirmed whether that claim is fact or not,
and if it did not solve the problems, whether it eased them
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Let me get this straight. The argument is that since it is hard
to remove people for cause in Debian, let us just start removing people
at random, even if they are performing well, and maybe, sometime,
somehow, that change may lead to
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/03/08 at 16:22 +, MJ Ray wrote:
There seemed to be broad consensus on BSD-style as default with other
DFSG licences like GPLv2 being allowed, didn't there?
I don't think so. Some people want a BSD license, some want the GPL,
some want
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/03/08 at 09:57 +, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Secondly, delegation should make X's task clear to both this project
and SPI in a robust way and seemed the most obvious to me. How does
the constitution give the DPL a power to tell SPI that X is going
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
and I really haven't seen much from Sam during his term.
For example, there's been: [6 dda posts and a blog category]
which is pretty comparable to either my own Steve's communication
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
It seems to me that, for this issue to be solved, we first need a
clear consensus on debian-www@ about:
- the plan we are going to follow
I believe we need legal advice on the validity of the various plans
before there will be a clear consensus on
.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk
aj wrote: [...]
...so much for non-adversarial campaigning, I guess.
Why? So far, this is only adversarial questioning of a candidate.
It doesn't necessarily require adversarial campaigning in reply.
Or is aba campaigning for one of the other candidates?
FWIW, I think each of the candidates
Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about considering ctte members having failed to participate in two
consecutive decisions as having resigned?
Maybe three rather than two, but I like that idea better than maximum
term lengths between appointments, FWIW.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk
Hi DPL candidates!
Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and
bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org
to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright statements.
In particular, delegation seems necessary to avoid bureaucratic
blocks to getting
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Campaigning on debian-vote *and* canvassing for help? Is this really
what aj meant by summarise their plans for their term?
No, this is just answering a question. Do you suggest that he should
, we've lost that time. We could
try to save that sort of time by rewarding early nominations with more
campaigning opportunities, by officially killing the convention
against campaigning during nominations.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237
nomination.
Propose it and I'll second. Could we start the two votes at once to
avoid voter fatigue?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Additional people to help select questions, prod the discussion
channels, and otherwise actually make things happen are needed too.
slef my biggest flaw is that I'll never be elected DPL [17:02:15]
so... I'm happy to try helping with the debate
BTS for the debian-faq [please trim submit from followups].
Please resend to anyone else calling the debian project a cooperative.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 02:26:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
q class=rambleThis is something where the project isn't managing
expectations very well. [...]
You seem to be trying a land-grab on the word cooperatively.
I don't mean to. I merely suggest
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
to them, even if it is just to say let the existing processes stand.
If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem
than do
nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, as I have said before, we should use straight per-candidate
approval voting.
[...]
and if more people vote `yes' for Alice than vote `no' for Alice then
Alice is appointed - regardless of any votes for or against Bob,
Carol, etc.
Isn't that always
://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.spi.general/482
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/spi#elections
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
It's not about opinions. It's about people. The problem most often
materializes when there are heated opinions, but the fundamental problem
is when people can't work together with mutual respect. If you end up
with people who intensely dislike
A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]MJ Ray/A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/vamendmentproposer
vamendmentseconds
ul
li
A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Aníbal Monsalve
Salazar/A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/li
li
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Since we have been in discussion for so long, would it be OK if
we actually started voting on the weekend of the 23rd? [...]
Fine by me. May your trip be enjoyable and less tiring than you expect.
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
the IRC debate but before voting closes.
No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies
petty DPL, we've far bigger problems than
the handover weeks!
This amendment merely normalises the handover. Please support it.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral
panel than now. [...]
It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the
panel; so it should be as neutral as possible. [...]
I didn't mean to suggest
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week. [...]
This would probably mean that organizing the debate might have
to go; since the time period for identifying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally
clear. [...]
It's as clear as it is now: DPL (not DPL-elect). The end of the
polling period is not necessarily the election date.
Notice polling closed before the DPL's election for a
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
From AJ's original mail:
...
Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in
the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so
to upload to the Debian archive. Any proposal which will allow
uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me.
Would you explain why, please? Is this about Michelle Konzack in
particular or a wider class of users?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
How can anyone second that in its current state? It's rather buggy.
I like the idea, but please withdraw your seconds until the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I propose the wording changes in the diff below and request seconds.
I have tried to include only wording bugfixes. In particular, this
does not remove jetring maintainers from section 1, change section 3's
conditions or remove section 4's advice.
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] After that, the applicant could
apply for the ability to upload already-sponsored packages, and leave it
at that. The key would be added to the keyring (a separate keyring if
needed for technical reasons).
If the applicant wanted, they could
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
== N-M Delays
This one suck, because NM delays are mostly fixeable, and DM will just
make them not painful at all for DD, depriving the system to be fixed.
This is exactly the use case I fear.
That's why I'd like some
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Don't expect to make the NM system evolve if you can't be bothered to
get implicated however (usual free software rule).
No no no - usual free software rule would allow creating a new
implementation and replacing or working around the broken-design
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
main things tested by NM now seem to be tolerance of boredom, stupid
questions and poor social skills of DDs, along with the ability to
paraphrase from key docs, which are not really key indicators of who
.
This is one reason why the DPL should follow consensus, not majority,
because it's a pain getting recall votes to document that we don't
support a particularly bad leader.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves to
s/resolves to/resolves/ # resolves to a new keyring will be created?
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help.
Is that true? Is the NM team awaiting help to improve the process, or
is it only awaiting help to operate the current process?
Last year, I suggested improving the NM
1 - 100 of 648 matches
Mail list logo
