On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:28:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
would be made publicly available. Also, the
a href=vote_002_tally.txttally sheet/a
Oops, that should have been vote_003_tally.txt.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Okay, here's a new draft with the following changes: [...]
Okay, as per A.2 I'm calling for a vote on this. TTBOMK there aren't any
related proposals or amendments to add to the ballot, so it should take
the form:
[ ] Choice 1:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote:
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took
me
most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this
proposal.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Bastian Venthur
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote:
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took
me
most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with
this
proposal.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at
Hi aj
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:56:50 pm Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote:
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread
(took me most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come
up with this proposal.
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 22:04]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]:
I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different
packages successfuly for my customers since several years.
Sorry if this sounds
* Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]:
I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different
packages successfuly for my customers since several years.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you're one of the people who I don't
want to upload to the Debian archive. Any proposal
Hi Steve
Sorry for the delay, I just arrived at College :(
I see the following weaknesses in your proposal compared with AJ's:
- Only people who are going through NM qualify. This reduces the set of
maintainers benefitting from it to those who have the time, interest, and
skill to go
Steffen Joeris wrote:
I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information.
I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in
dozens of mails. This is just my proposal and
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]:
I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different
packages successfuly for my customers since several years.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you're one of the people who I don't
want
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that: [...]
So one thing that I wrote about originally [0], that I don't think I've
repeated much, is that ultimately I look at this as
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be
Hi mate
(Note: If the NM applies for DD status, he can become a DM after FD
approval)
Is an NM process different from the NM process?
If the last item would require the applicant to apply for NM-ship and
not be rejected from this process, it would help those in the NM process
waiting
Hi Steffen,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote:
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took
me
most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this
proposal.
I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit
On 27.06.2007 13:41 schrieb Anthony Towns:
Seconds, comments or amendments appreciated.
Since some people seem to prefer a simpler solution without a DM class
but simply limited upload rights (as you proposed for the DMs) for NMs
after a certain point in their NM career, I wonder how many
Hi mates
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took me
most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this
proposal.
I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
patch below the proposal, together with my
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 08:25:56PM +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, please sent it, I'll publish it somewhere.
If you are not too ashamed of your scripts, I'd like to see them as
well, if you don't mind.
Hi,
Thanks to Felipe, the
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, please sent it, I'll publish it somewhere.
If you are not too ashamed of your scripts, I'd like to see them as
well, if you don't mind.
Hi,
Thanks to Felipe, the lists of possible candidates are now
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:30:46PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Thanks to Felipe, the lists of possible candidates are now public. See:
* list of non-DD Maintainers or Uploaders, sorted by the number of
packages:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:16:47PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 08:25:56PM +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, please sent it, I'll publish it somewhere.
If you are not too ashamed of your scripts, I'd like to see
On sam, 2007-06-30 at 16:30 +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
It would probably be helpful to clean the listing from those in NM.
I guess I know a way to clean them :)
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, please sent it, I'll publish it somewhere.
If you are not too ashamed of your scripts, I'd like to see them as
well, if you don't mind.
Hi,
Thanks to Felipe, the lists of possible candidates are now public. See:
* list of non-DD
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Perhaps the most proper way to make changes to the contributor classes
would be to first amend the constitution, creating a new class, and only
then issue a GR outlining how the practicalities will be handled (if
needed). There is also an
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Perhaps the most proper way to make changes to the contributor classes
would be to first amend the constitution, creating a new class, and only
then issue a GR outlining how the
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Perhaps the most proper way to make changes to the contributor classes
would be to first amend the constitution, creating a new class,
On 27/06/07 at 21:42 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/06/07 at 16:57 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the
Hi,
On 27/06/07 at 12:41 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
[...]
* the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file
I second the proposal quoted below.
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained by:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:18:31PM +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 27/06/07 at 12:41 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
[...]
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 06:32:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, effectively the DM /could/ sponsor uploads of their own package by
using -m, though that seems unnecessarily convoluted to me anyway.
At that point the difference between sponsoring an upload and applying
a patch someone
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
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 22:51:04 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
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
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, gregor herrmann wrote:
Or is it an additional requirement, i.e. if $person is a DM _and_
$package listing her as an uploader has 'DM-Upload: yes' set, then
$person may upload $package?
Yes.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that
I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves to
1) A new keyring will be
I second the proposal cited below.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:34:52AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project
On 26/06/07 at 16:57 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the right number.
TTBOMK, the real keyring can be obtained by ssh by DDs, at
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
I believe it has way to many flaws to be seconded.
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian
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
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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can anyone second that in its current state? It's rather buggy.
I like the idea, but please withdraw your seconds until the worst bugs
are fixed. If that passes as-is, the project will look sillier.
I don't agree that the language mistakes in the proposal
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
I believe it has way to many flaws to be seconded.
Once the few wordings issues are sorted out, 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
-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.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
* none of the packages are being taken over from other
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The easiest way to avoid that problem would be to require a new field in
the package DM-Upload: okay to allow DM uploads, as well as an entry
in the Maintainer:/Uploaders: field. [...]
Agreed. However, you need to check that
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:58:13PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Notes: package should generally be co-maintained by sponsor and non-DD
maintainer, with the non-DD maintainer doing most of the work
If you restrict this use case to that specific case, then you won't
have a lot of
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:17:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
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
Okay, here's a new draft with the following changes:
- incorporate committers by name rather than by relevant
qualifications
- split committers into expected active committers and reserve
committers
- mention tools expected to be used, but don't require them even
I second the proposal below.
also sprach Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.06.27.1341 +0200]:
Okay, here's a new draft with the following changes:
- incorporate committers by name rather than by relevant
qualifications
- split committers into expected active committers
On 6/27/07, Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, here's a new draft with the following changes:
- incorporate committers by name rather than by relevant
qualifications
- split committers into expected active committers and reserve
committers
- mention tools
I second the proposal below.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
The proposal was to check based the Maintainer/Uploader field of the
previous .dsc upload to unstable/experimental, and presumably doing the
same thing for the DM-Upload-Allowed: field (or whatever it's called).
(This doesn't address the case of
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:17:44AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
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
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that
keyring
provided:
* none of the packages are
On 27.06.2007 13:41 schrieb Anthony Towns:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained by:
* Anthony Towns (proposer, ftpmaster, jetring developer)
* Joey Hess (jetring developer)
...
* Brian Nelson (n-m
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:03:36PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:58:13PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Notes: package should generally be co-maintained by sponsor and non-DD
maintainer, with the non-DD maintainer doing most of the work
If you restrict this use
On Wednesday 27 June 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Why don't we just grant some of those rights you're proposing for DMs to
our NM's after a certain point in their NM career? That would in my
opinion instantly help and motivate fare more people than the new DM
class will ever do.
current
Hi,
I second the GR proposal quoted below.
Cheers,
Moritz
=3D=3D=3D=3D Debian Maintainers Proposal =3D=3D=3D=3D
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers
I second the below proposal.
BTW, s/intial/initial/.
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be
I second the proposal below.
Cheers,
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers
I second the following proposal.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Okay, here's a new draft with the following changes:
- incorporate committers by name rather than by relevant
qualifications
- split committers into expected active committers and
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:41 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian Maintainers Proposal
I welcome the idea of enabling people to work on Debian, but it seems to
me that this proposal (even with the latest changes) mixes some
concepts, that it creates more work, and duplicates some work
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
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Upstream Maintainers ==
[...]
Authorised by: Existing maintainer
Notes: package should be co-maintained by maintainer and upstream, upstream
generally to be expected to be uploading code changes rather than
packaging changes
I'm not sure I
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs
cannot be hidden by closing them before I
On Monday 25 June 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
== Sponsored Maintainers =
For packages that're maintained by non-DDs on an ongoing basis via
sponsored uploads, DM status provides the sponsor with the opportunity
to change the upload priveleges from default-deny to default-allow
once they
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
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:13:31AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
Do we have any numbers on how many non-DD maintainers we have? I'm part of
that group, but how large a group is this?
There are about 2100 unique email address in the Maintainer: and
Uploaders: field in the unstable
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [...]
I've used terms like initial policy quite a bit -- [...]
Shortly before leaving
Hi!
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070626 13:51]:
There are about 2100 unique email address in the Maintainer: and
Uploaders: field in the unstable Sources files. That counts mailing
lists and potentially multiple alternate addresses for DDs as well as
non-DD maintainers of course.
I
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
Do we have any numbers on how many non-DD maintainers we have? I'm part of
that group, but how large a group is this?
A very long one-liner[1] gets me 992 in the main unstable archive. Of course
the number is different since the debian-keyring in the unstable
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the right number.
TTBOMK, the real keyring can be obtained by ssh by DDs, at
merkel:/srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg
and via anonymous
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 end
up using it.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the right number.
TTBOMK, the real keyring can be obtained by ssh by DDs, at
merkel:/srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg
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.
I suspect one reason that this thread hasn't resulted in many people
expressing an interest is that non-DDs tend not to read
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du mercredi 27 juin 2007, vers 01:06, Paul
Cager [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
I'm a fairly active (non-DD) member of the Java Packaging team, and I
also maintain a couple of non-Java packages. Although I'm starting to
become reasonably skilled at Java packaging, I'm
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- then I am granted the right to help fixing the bug I found a few
months ago
No, you don't have to do that to help fix the bug. To help fix the bug,
all you have to do is post a patch on the bug log.
Which is what he did.
If you think the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [0].
One reason[*] in favour of having such a DM category is that there
may be software developers who would be willing to package their
So here was my practical conclusion: I did send a bug report, useless
during months, and that bug report was used to argue that the package
is
broken and unkaintained and to remove it. Conclusion: reporting on a
un-maintained package is something dangerous.
Hm, what was the severity of the
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
Another case come back in my mind: pandora. Those fonts have been
available with TeX since years and years. They have been removed from
Debian/main for good reasons (wrong license: free for non commercial use).
In my mind, in such a case, it should be mandatory to move
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring
tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to:
[...]
* the Jetring developers
Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here was my practical conclusion: I did send a bug report, useless
during months, and that bug report was used to argue that the package
is
broken and unkaintained and to remove it. Conclusion: reporting on a
un-maintained package is something
Interesting - is that talk available somewhere? Neither www.tug.org nor
uk.tug.org seem to have it.
Sure, here it is:
In issue 21-3 of TUGboat:
http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Contents/contents21-3.html
The first talk in the list, about FDNTeX. By reading it, you'll find
some ideas that were quite
* Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 13:14]:
If you read back to the DM proposal, it is clearly stated that a DM is
not allowed to upload a NEW package. So, the approach is not wanting to
packageupload anything but a given package.
But licenses are nothing fixed. Upstream can decide to
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:53 +0200, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
Le Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:50:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
- first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
crazy licenses in a language that is not
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
To the DM proposers: Does the suggestion in the current form mean that I
will no longer be allowed to sponser anyone out of fear he might become
DM and thus said he is capable enough to maintain this type of package.
If you
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:51:09AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
* the Jetring developers (Joey Hess, Anthony Towns, Christoph Berg)
What is the rationale for giving this set of people commit rights?
The full list was:
* the Debian Account Managers (Joerg Jaspert, James Troup)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [...]
I've used terms like initial policy quite a bit -- [...]
Shortly before leaving DebConf someone (whose name I've forgotten,
On 11057 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ In case some of the stuff below is already answered in different mails
- pointing me at them is enough. I just had no time to read all of them,
way too large thread. :) Thanks. ]
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
snip
What this also does is getting you out of touch with your (possible)
sponsors, as now you let them upload once, advocate you, then you upload
following versions yourself. A year later you have a new package and
need to find a sponsor again, beginning from point
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Shortly before leaving DebConf someone (whose name I've forgotten,
sadly) suggested that some sample use cases for the DM process might be
useful. Here's some that come to my mind:
Another use case that I'd like to mention is the Ubuntu maintainer
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 07:45:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
== N-M queue =
Authorised by: AM
This one makes sense. I'd also add the sponsor in the people giving
the ACK.
== Sponsored Maintainers =
Authorised by: Sponsor
Notes: package should generally be
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
To the DM proposers: Does the suggestion in the current form mean that I
will no longer be allowed to sponser anyone out of fear he might become
DM and thus said he is capable enough to maintain this type
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
15 months, while with DM, it would have been only few days...
No. You won't be able to fix it unless you have become a DM with
exactly the dvidvi package and thus are allowed to upload a fixed
version. Otherwise you
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 08:58:53PM +0200, Joey Schulze:
for me. There are two ways to do that:
- I make my own custom package that fix the bug (or add required
software), I use it, I make it available to my friends on my web
site, and that's all;
- I try to make it available in
Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 09:01:51PM +0200, Sven Luther:
First, my mail won't reach the list, since i am currently being unfairly
censored and banned from posting on debian lists, so if you judge this
mail worthwhile, you can forward it.
Uh?
Sven has
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
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
During my discussions with DDs, I found there is currently no solution
This is where you are wrong. The correct way to handle this, is to be
part of a team, working on the tex packages and providing fixes, and if
there is an upload needed, a DD member of the team
For me, I do want to be part of Debian anymore does not coincide with
I
want to upload to Debian. Someone who uploads to Debian *is* part of
the
community.
I see no reason to vote for a proposal that facilitates people who
explicitly
denounce Debian to be granted rights to the same
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
