* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081029 20:58]:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:09:14PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] (29/10/2008):
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not
provided by
|
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not
provided by
| the project with as much help as might be possible, useful
* Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081029 21:01]:
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not
provided by
Hi,
* Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-29 21:06]:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment
On 30/10/08 at 09:18 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
I hereby second the proposal quoted below and have no objection to
Charles Plessy's earlier proposal being dropped (or retracted)
Thanks Frans for the explanation, and thanks
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds.
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
not
| working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:01:51PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
Although I take exception to some of the name calling that has been
done against Charles and Lucas, I am fine with switching to this
alternative proposal as its ultimate intend is identical: to safeguard
that no changes are made to something as fundamental to the project
as its membership
Le Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
I hereby second the proposal quoted below and have no objection to
Charles Plessy's earlier proposal being dropped (or retracted)
Thanks Frans for the explanation, and thanks again to Peter who showed us a
way to an exit of the
Hi,
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
The text I'm thinking about is currently this:
| The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
| not working withing established
also sprach Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.28.0921 +0100]:
| We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve
| contributors more closely with the project so that they can get both
| recognition and the necessary tools to do their work.
The problem I have with this is
Hi,
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:21, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
Good call.
The text I'm thinking about is currently this:
[..]
This is not a call for seconds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
Me too.
Unfortunately this tone seems to be normal in Debian these days, which
is a shame.
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
The text I'm
I have a problem with this part:
| We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas
| in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present
| a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future,
| at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation.
As long as Joerg doesn't agree with that, I don't see why we should drop
the immediate vote or the GR itself.
Then please explain what the immediate vote will gain, besides
*NEEDLESS* work for the secretary (running it), needless work for
everyone (to vote)?
There is 0 need for the immediate
Hi
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:21:57AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Hi,
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
Thank you for proposing this option. I really like it's constructive tone.
The
Hi Joerg,
On 28/10/08 at 12:17 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
As long as Joerg doesn't agree with that, I don't see why we should drop
the immediate vote or the GR itself.
Then please explain what the immediate vote will gain, besides
*NEEDLESS* work for the secretary (running it),
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Do you propose to drop the immediate vote, but keep the fact the
decision is put on hold according to 4.2.2.2, until the final vote on
this GR ?
That is exactly what he proposed in a different email in this thread.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On 28/10/08 at 13:07 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Do you propose to drop the immediate vote, but keep the fact the
decision is put on hold according to 4.2.2.2, until the final vote on
this GR ?
That is exactly what he proposed in a different
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:12:11PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
| We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce
| mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large
| part of our community. We
* Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-28 14:03]:
This is very different from saying that nothing will happen because the
decision is on hold under 4.2.2.2. If Joerg suddenly got a lot of free
time, he could implement all the changes quickly and start giving DME/DC
statuses to people.
On 28/10/08 at 14:12 +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-28 14:03]:
This is very different from saying that nothing will happen because the
decision is on hold under 4.2.2.2. If Joerg suddenly got a lot of free
time, he could implement all the changes
* Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-28 15:01]:
What does it change? Are we going to rely on people being busy to block
a decision that we disagree with? That's ... interesting.
It's interesting that someone get's no stoned for suggesting changes
while in the past it would've been
On 28/10/08 at 15:30 +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
And if you really belief that Ganneff would implement something that
gets such a disagreement from the community I smell a witch hunt rather
than dislike of a proposal.
Initially, I just thought OK, let's convince Ganneff to simply drop
those
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:21:57AM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
The text I'm thinking about is currently this:
| The Debian Project recognizes that
Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 20:38 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
So either we, the project, a) work with them and try to convince them of
the merits of alternate proposals, or b) we could force a system they
aren't convinced of upon them using a GR - probably not something that
will work very
34 matches
Mail list logo
