On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:00:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:13:13AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Well, if nobody but Zack is going to run, that would make for a rather
dull and boring
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:17:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It was pointed out to me on IRC that because I stated that I was running
*because* Stefano was the only candidate, and that there are three
candidates now, it might be good to clarify that I'm not withdrawing.
So: I'm
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:02:20PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
The nomination period for the DPL election is almost over. At the
time of this writing, there is still about 29 hours left. The
nomination period ends on Thursday, March 11th, 2010 at 23:59:59 UTC.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:47:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear all,
a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is
spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the
distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources
in this
stage. But whatever.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modified version
in
source form only, you do not have any long standing obligation. This is
not
the case here.
That's
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
Doing a simple modification
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
(this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in
20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig)
Asking for seconds,
(please CC me)
Bill.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
document is the previous option.
What
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence
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
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 Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.
Actually, they are interpreting
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
position statement.
That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
our
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:11:16PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:53:10AM +, Per Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Debian Project Secretary
secret...@debian.org wrote:
To be valid, a Debian Developer needs to send a signed email in
which he
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:30:05PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think trivial cases are going to be much of a problem. In any
case, I was thinking of a voting procedure for this body where the few
voters would only be allowed to vote yes or no, plus perhaps a
rationale; we don't
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
should be an instance of appeal like
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
options exist. You should
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
- In a country, the body that decides whether a law is or is not
unconstitutional, can only do so when a citizen explicitly asks it to
do so. In the absence
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one,
please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of
cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to
the promise only in
Hi,
Sven asked me to forward this message to the list. Since it does not
contain any of the vitriol for which he was expelled from the project,
and since it does contain some valid points on the discussion in
question, I decided to comply with his request.
I'd like to say, though, that this does
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:46:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 12 December 2008 15:35, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
On Friday 12 December 2008 12:57, Neil McGovern wrote:
..Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:27:49PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
As this is pushed via webwml, this isn't done automatically.
For 'live' stats, see
http://master.debian.org/~neilm/gr_membership/index.html
In the past, manoj would link to his personal master.d.o pages for live
stats from the
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Given that this hasn't reached the required number of seconds for a
discussion period to start, and it's been three weeks since the initial
mail, are you happy for this to be dropped?
Yes. By now it's just plain too late; and given
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:45:53AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17:18AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 04:51:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- I've always considered Debian to be a leading member of the Free
Software community; as such, I feel it is our duty to tell others when
we think they are straying off the path
Hi,
For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing
people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to
their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require
them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just
ignoring
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 10:59:42AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi Martin,
* Martin Loschwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-08 10:30]:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e
[ 2 ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre
[ 3 ] Choice 2:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 01:19:32PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I have contacted a few people about helping out with the tasks above
(and some I plan to contact) but I can't
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:24:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
the supermajority specification in recent versions of the
constitution.
This was discussed
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:57:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
ad-hoc voting methods. If there are other methods to use that have the
same theoretical underpinnings as [2], I would be happy to consider
them.
What about the Kemeny-Young method?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:32:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:35:07 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we have a vote?
Thanks for calling the vote. AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm
new to this), I'm
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:12:15PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The campaign-only period is the most annoying bit of DPL elections,
Actually, it's the most important bit in the DPL election. I see no need
to shorten it -- on the contrary.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
--
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 11:15:19PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about
various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion
really does sound to me like too little time.
Note that
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
No. And that's a
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:25:33PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:38:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems
sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time.
FWIW, I believe that 2 years is too long, both for the DPL who may
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the
reasons outlined by Jeff in:
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html
I'll summarize those as if people want continuity in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
PS, probably too obvious to mention, but such an amendment needs to only
take effect at the next election cycle.
Yes, no doubt about that.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:17:53AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
And, BTW, the buildd admins of the experimental buildds are in touch
with the buildd admins of the unstable buildds - and I discussed that
matter with Ryan and James before setting up
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
The top complaints I'm reading from
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
Sure, Don't quit Debian then is a valid response (though I'm perhaps
old-fashioned in terms of thinking that as a full member of an
organisation I have a duty to participate in its democratic process,
which I'm not
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:25:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The DFSG are hereby amended to add the following additional guideline:
10. No Required Contribution of Changes [...]
11. No Required Identity Disclosure [...]
I think this is a
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:47:26PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:10:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:41:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
No, you are just a DD whose access to lists
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:41:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
No, you are just a DD whose access to lists has been suspended.
A sub-DD all the same, what about all those others who participated in
those flamewars ?
Sven, with all due
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:02:43AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
In general, please don't interpret silence as implicit agreement.
I'm not doing that. On the contrary.
--
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
want to use it.
--
To
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I don't recognize the suspension as valid,
Too bad, since apparently everyone else does (or at least if they don't,
they aren't saying so)
[...]
We all joined Debian thinking each DD is equal in right and duties,
No, that's not
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It is amazing to what step people can resort just to silence the voice
of their own concience and don't be reminded of their shame.
There is no shame here. There is only annoyance.
--
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:36:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:42:13AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It is amazing to what step people can resort just to silence the voice
of their own concience
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:19:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I am glad never to have worked full-time in such a workplace and would
like to remind the project that another world is possible.
Debian isn't out to rid the world of social unfairness; instead, Debian
is out to provide a Free Operating
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:44:30AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:17:59PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
An admittedly modest technical contributor to Debian, I have not
earned the right to complain often, so I don't. Nevertheless, I agree
pretty much completely with the words of Andreas Tille, Clint Adams
and Frans Pop; and I
|||/
V: 2143 wouter Wouter Verhelst
I was initially going to vote 1342 or 1243, since I did (and still do!)
agree with the position that there are some problems in the wording of
the anti-DRM, and some of the other clauses.
However, somewhere during the discussion (which took place
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:53:56AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 16 mars 2007 à 08:35 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
While there are other problems than the
invariant section, it was really the biggest problem and the others
will probably disappear with the next GFDL update
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:08:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Hi all,
Since so much of the perceived troubles debian has been having lately can be
traced down to arrogance and pride, as well as failures to communicate, i want
to ask these question to the DPL candidates now :
1) Can you
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:22:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like Google is really everywhere these days. I'm curious about
SoC: What where the last year's Debian projects and what was there
outcome? Which projects where successful and which failed?
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:03:05PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070316 14:35]:
How would other candidates avoid dropping topics like this?
The only way you can do that is by actively asking people to produce a
report when they said they'd do so
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:59:23AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi,
We all know from experience (and this is not specific to Debian) that
the persons that get elected do not distribute their actions over the
term of office regularly. They are usually active just after they get
elected,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:23:06PM +1030, Ron wrote:
[...background snipped...]
So... with some background now in place, and given that some of the
candidates have proposed in their platforms that we further accelerate
the processing of NM applications to include people in the keyring,
and
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:13:35PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
There is by the way a reason behind the requirement that votes should be
as easy as possible to understand. I'm not saying that hex is too hard
to understand (at least not for me)
Let's put it this way: if there is anyone under
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
68k seems to have elected to skip official etch, but also seems to
have met the requirements. Some of the non-dd porters still want
an official etch release.
(They met the requirements after the architecture freeze,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:30:18AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
Hi,
How much time do you generally have to read Debian-related e-mail?
Too much :)
How much for the Debian mailing lists?
One hour up to a few hours per day.
How many lists do you follow, and which ones do you pay real
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:55:06AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
after reading some of the rebuttals, I have some questions for
all the candidates (some questions make more sense for the candidates
who are also in the DPL board that I suggested, but others are free to
respond as if they
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1/ Why do you think that alone you'll be able to take consensual
decisions if
you fear that you're not able to convince a small set of open-minded
Debian developers?
It's
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:03:54AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:58:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Try please, blow me away.
In your opinion, is it ever appropriate for any of the
following parties to insist on being blown away in exchange
for removing an obstacle
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:14:05PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:43:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this question, or what the point is.
I will clarify. AJ obviously feels that it is his prerogative (under
which hat or set of hats, I
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:56:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[...]
None; or, at least, not more than I currently do. Except, perhaps, on
IRC, but then I don't expect the press to appear there.
I warn you, there are reporters on IRC during meetings
---: Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
|/ Option 3--: Choice 3: Further Discussion
||/
[...]
V: 312 wouter Wouter Verhelst
Gustavo Franco wasn't a DD during this vote and Aigars Mahinov didn't
vote. The rest of you: would you still vote like you did in 2004
[It's not entirely clear whether you want everyone to reply to this, or
just Aigars. I'm answering anyway, just to be on the safe side :) ]
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:32:03PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
QUESTION 1:
Some DDs expressed those views and some candidates seem to be interpreting
this as a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:41:09PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing like a moral right to mock people, just like there is
nothing like a moral right not to be mocked.
Research[1] has shown that one of the primary factors deterring
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 12:50:22PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
this question is for all candidates:
How important are unofficial archives[1] for you?
They are important, as they allow people to do stuff with their Debian
installation that isn't necessarily possible with Debian
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 04:29:46PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
DebConf, the annual Debian Developers Conference, is currently not officially
affiliated with Debian (or SPI) and its not listed on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
Do you think DebConf should have an official
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:04:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Which release-critical bug will each of you fix in order to convince me to
vote for you? :)
Heh. How about #376812? ;-)
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
--
To
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:42:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I've read a few questions and answers which use the word effective.
I suspect there are different interpretations of effective. In
particular, whether a delegation is still effective - because on the
face of it, that could be a no-op in
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:43:05AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
Hi!
Many of the candidates are busy in other parts of debian with doing some
other more or less important work.
Which parts of your current work will you spend less time on when being
a DPL?
Oh, I still have quite a bit of
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:10:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ask Anthony and Steve what they think of how they handled
the conflict between Frans Pop and Sven Luther, and other candidates how
they would have handled this conflict.
To everyone: how would you avoid such
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:22:57PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Which of the candidates, if elected, would finally get me the ponies
I've been craving for years?
* Go to http://www.origamidatabase.com/
* Search for pony
* Buy one of the books your search turns up
* Fold
* Enjoy your pony
Glad
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:20:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
you, be a reasonable amount
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
won't try it.
Ah, I expected
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
pages.
I can't be expected to know everything
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:13:12AM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote:
Why do you think you will be a good DPL?
Two things: first, when discussing matters with other people, I
generally try to see their point of view before coming up with a
proposal that will work for the both of us, thereby trying to
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:52:20PM -0500, Curt Larson wrote:
As kind of a follow-up to the basic 'what would you do as DPL that you
could not do as DD?' I would like to know more about how you would
handle marketing Debian.
First of all, I would like to make clear that I do not view marketing
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?
I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
does not allow for too much action by the DPL. However, I never
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:16:21PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
* How important are regular releases for the project?
Very. Individual people may be happy with testing or unstable, but large
corporate users need stable releases in order to be able to use Debian.
* How important are
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 04:18:05PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?
I have always thought
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 04:46:55PM -0600, John Lightsey wrote:
The first power enumerated to the DPL in the Debian Constitution is the
power to appoint and remove delegates. My questions are directed at
determining how you as DPL will use this power to guide the Debian
Project.
Even if that
Hi!
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:57:21AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Now that we are well into the campaigning period, I'd like to ask each
candidate a couple of questions. Feel free to say that this is
answered in my platform, if that is the case.
What is the role of the DPL? Is he a strong
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:50:41AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
These questions may be skipped by AJ, because the answers are obvious.
What do you think of the dunc-tank initiative ?
I have always thought there is nothing inherently wrong with paying
people to do Debian work. I applaud aj
201 - 300 of 403 matches
Mail list logo
