On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:28:33 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> The reason for asking the question in the first place is because the
> statements made by the candidates demand some level of quantification.
> What, precisely, is the problem with asking for a quantitative
> description of a
On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 21:46:08 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Hello,
Hm?
| --
| GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini
|
| [-- End of signed data --]
|
| [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 4 00:09:30 2021) --]
| gpg: Signature made Sat Apr 3 21:46:04 2021 CEST
| gpg:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 23:20:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Leaving out the detail of Debian paying someone for work, this has one more
> thing that can backfire hard, as I just could witness in an (entirely
> unrelated) org: That those hired ones got more powerful than the actual
> leader. Simply
On Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:59:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
Thank you.
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking
> > of the options giv
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:40 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have written this mail To people who seconded Guillem's proposal and
> to some people from the thread. I would particularly like to hear
> your views.
>
> I am considering making a formal variant of Guillem's proposal, which,
> if
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:46:27 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm thus proposing the following:
>
> X<
> Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
> C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
> if there are any practical differences. Understand this is not a
> criticism of this
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:01:37 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
> gregor> This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around
> gregor> NMUs which are prevalent in Debian for at least ten years
>
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:58:09 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice hartmans1A: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
[…]
> Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
This contradicts the spirit, culture, and conventions around NMUs
which are prevalent in Debian for at
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:27:56 +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> I'm therefore proposing the following General Resolution:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
>
> All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:24:52 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on
the jessie release.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:23:48 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote
on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate
one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public
feedback welcome ---
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:42:47 +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
To me the strength of the CoC draft we are looking at here is that it
doesn't concern itself with trivialities or with specific media. It talks
about conduct -- that is behaviour, deportment, how we want people interact
as human
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:02:08 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 25/03/13 at 16:22 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Are we strict enough with our existing contributors? When we're trying
to work together as best we can to make the Universal Operating System
happen, what could/should we do with
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:15:58 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Even the suggestion of a testing removal can evoke negative feelings
for those affected (sometimes from those on the sidelines too). A
recent example:
http://bugs.debian.org/703258
There seems to be a misunderstanding; at least my
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:55:42 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
schools/seminars
--
Ubuntu does https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek - a set of
seminars on IRC to teach Ubuntu development. I'm not sure of how useful
that is (I've never attended it) and if we should do it
On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:32:41 +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE
The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:17:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Before pushing it forward as an amendment, I'd like to hear opinions about
this: we have had problems with GRs proposing orthogonal options in the past.
This amendment proposal discusses two things that are orthogonal (giving full
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:27:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Salut Charles,
Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild
our
^^
system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:08:00 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Still, in your question you're hinting at some earlier mentoring, and I
believe that should happen in teams. [..]
That is why I like the http://www.debian.org/Teams/ page. Ideally, that
can become the welcome place for new
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x 1). I
think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
sink for the project as a
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:44:11 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
I'm sorry to hear about this decision.
Although I don't agree with some of your arguments around the current
GR, I have respect for you and your work, and I trust you
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:45:54 -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
the
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:45:56 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Since some people have had trouble reading the proposals, I am
including a short impact of the proposal list below the proposal.
Thanks for listing the consequences of the different choices.
In order to make it
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:40:29 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
This is exactly what I don't like in the proposal. I think I already
said that, but DM is about pet packages, while Debian as a whole is
advocating Team work, Alioth, and co-maintenance. Something here feels
wrong and fishy.
I
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:27:12 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I don't see a contradiction here; on the contrary I can imagine that
DMs take some work off the shoulders of DDs in teams.
I fail to see how. More pet packages mean more work
I was not thinking about those pet packages but about
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:03:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
and once Anthony has
fixed the proposal so that a DM doesn't automatically get upload rights
on all packages where he's currently listed as Maintainer/Uploader (via
the mandatory DM-Upload: yes field that only a DD can add),
I think
[cc and reply-to/m-f-t [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:32:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There are other things
that *are* signs of fundamental deficiencies in the project,
Would you mind to elaborate on this point, I'm really interested in
your opinion.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`.
29 matches
Mail list logo
