On Wed, November 19, 2014 10:51, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
As far as I know Debian does not have a routinely executed
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
On Fri, October 17, 2014 19:42, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by
On Fri, March 14, 2014 15:37, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
You use the init discussions as an example. I'd like to stress that many
people (inside and outside Debian) have been extremely impressed by the
init discussion on the -ctte@ list. The Technical Committee provided an
in-depth technical review
On Fri, March 7, 2014 11:23, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole
Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of
being a whole project statement.
Op woensdag 5 maart 2014 19:05:45 schreef Neil McGovern:
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC as a general
purpose document, rather than have it specific to each medium. The
information at
On Mon, February 24, 2014 08:47, Alexander Wirt wrote:
- The administrators will divulge any bans to all Debian Developers for
review. I know that this is the case for lists.d.o now, but I never saw
other anything from other services. Are _all_ other administrators of
'Debian
On Sat, February 15, 2014 15:06, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
I feel that if the GR results on the quoted above pool would
be different from TC - that may affect other TC decisions.
Ian, would you like to sponsor GR in this form?
PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
With 1000
On Tue, March 19, 2013 23:52, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
Do you have ideas on how to attract more volunteers to the dull, hard,
and sometimes boring tasks of taking care of security issues in Debian?
Perhaps it would be useful if we tried not to scare people away with
mischaracterizations that the
Op zaterdag 16 maart 2013 17:39:56 schreef Moray Allan:
On 2013-03-16 12:13, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The current NMU guidelines[1] discourage fixing cosmetic issues or
changing the packaging style in an NMU. The reason for that is that
such changes are often a matter of taste (though there
On Tuesday 1 April 2008 00:18, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree that the stable security team should no longer be responsible
for the wordpress package,[1]
[...]
1: Though I must admit that it's not clear to me why
http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wordpress/news/20080306T195216Z.html
hasn't been
On Thursday 20 March 2008 07:33, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
When you register to NM process, you're asked to check boxes if you
agree to Social Contract etc. But those checks aren't really enough.
What you have is to say (somewhere on a signed mail) that you agree.
Currently only the AM receives
On Mon, March 10, 2008 11:07, Mike Bird wrote:
Where is the dpkg team policy that requires Ian to rebase?
We have asked many times
Exactly who is we here? Please name me three of your most recent
contributions to Debian that justify you making demands on the project
c.q. Raphaël.
thanks,
On Wednesday 1 August 2007 01:46, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Your Dutch seems up to par, but why are you talking Dutch to a
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 09:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:40, Charles Plessy wrote:
The Debian-Med project is in a growing phase that requires the gathering
of programs and utilities which are easy to package and maintain, and
which we keep in a common SVN repository.
Needless to say, I would be very happy to see this GR
On Thursday 26 July 2007 16:11, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[2] The NM process rejects some people who have the technical abilities to
maintain packages but who are not in sync with the rest of the community.
I fail to see why we should refuse their technical contribution.
You assess that there are
Hi Anthony,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:29, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:18:57AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
However, like Pierre, I'm not convinced that the numbers of actually
interested people is large.
FWIW, I'm happy to put the work into this even if not many people
On Sunday 24 June 2007 15:10, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
My point is that, when I find a software that is broken, what should I
do with it if there is no DD to maintain it? Your point leads to
answering let it be broken, since you do not want to spend hours every
week reading mailing lists.
I
On Sunday 24 June 2007 16:07, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
One should be entirely devoted
to the sect, and thus become a DD, or entirely out of the thing, and
thus contribute nothing.
I use Debian for only technical reasons, basically because dpkg works
better than rpm, and because files tend to
On Thursday 21 June 2007 19:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
The NM process is about making new DDs -- who participate fully in
the project, and understand and agree with its goals. Not every useful
contributor to Debian actually wants that status -- Matthew Garrett's one
example of a former DD who'd
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:14, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If you don't believe what I said and what others said, shall we post on
debian-devel-announce some sort of straw poll to see how many people would
be interested?
Don't believe seems a bit over the top, but I'm indeed cautious of
introducing
On Friday 22 June 2007 11:49, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Recently I was thinking about resigning as a DD but still wanting to
continue maintaining the few packages I have. Had that happened I
would very much have liked to have something like DM available,
instead of having to pester some other DD
On Friday 22 June 2007 12:39, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
I personally do feel that there are two distinct parts. First, there
is the Debian archive, which is governed by our Social Contract.
Second, there is the social community, ie. mailing lists and IRC,
which isn't part of the SC. Now, if I don't
On Friday 22 June 2007 14:50, Mark Brown wrote:
This depends. Like a number of other people I believe that it is
important to exercise your right to vote whenever possible.
You can consider it important to exercise your right to vote *because* you
deem a specific system imporant to support
On Friday 22 June 2007 16:50, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not for the benefit of that developer, but for our benefit. I have no fear
at all of Matthew Garrett doing an incompetent job of preparing packages;
why should we make it hard for *Debian* to take advantage of his
contributions?
Just to get
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:16 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hey, that's not really a cultural difference here. If you really
already know for sure some people won't never ever get paid, how could
they feel otherwise?
How about: I couldn't care less? I think you illustrated a part of the
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:00 -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I
would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted
in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as
allowed by our Constitution (section
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering,
if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR
has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.
How about we see how to solve that when it
Hello Wouter,
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 12:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Perhaps a formulation like
Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
organization that has been vetted by the DPL to be
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 18:51 +0100, David Pashley wrote:
Presumably because transfering money between countries involves
non-neglegable cost, where as transfer of ownership of hardware
doesn't[0].
I understand that - my point is that I don't see a clear reason to
*disallow* other of such vetted
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:28 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the first thing to note is that irregular point releases aren't
a big deal
I think they are underrated; they provide a good service to our users.
- People buy CD's or use the non-net-install images because they don't
have the
Hello Enrico,
But there's more than that. In the last year as part of the DPL Team,
people have been criticising the last year for the lack of reports. But
I don't remember a single one sending in a mail like Dear DPL[-Team],
what happened last week?.
It would have been a pleasure to
Hello Ari,
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 00:24 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why haven't you gotten Zeke neutered yet?
Do you consider people who ask about Zekes neuteuring when thet did not
(yet) castrate themselves to be hypocritical?
Given that Zeke's still active, would he rather mate with Vi or
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
Could you please explain how you arrive at the
35 matches
Mail list logo
