Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
...
(or fighting bitter rearguard battles).
This may be a language issue, but I have been thinking about what a
rearguard battle is, and I can't think of any way Ian can possibly be
talking about himself. The rear guard is on the back. This must mean
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words.
Ditto. In my experience, nothing is gained when we allow emotion to get
the better of reason in our involvement with Debian.
On the other hand, that means my replies are about several posts, and
are
Bas Wijnen writes (Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard
battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]):
[stuff]
Bas, thank you very much for your support, but I'm afraid I really
have to disagree with some of what you have said:
So let me explain
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war,
rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
coupling]):
[some things]
Bdale, I completely understand why you are upset and angry over what I
have said. I'm, unfortunately, also, still, very upset
First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words. Have you considered
running for DPL by any chance? ;-)
Like Sam, I will not post a lot here. One reason is that I don't want
to spawn a flamewar; the other that I want to let messages sink in
before replying to them. I encourage everyone else
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times.
That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't
insulting people.
He has certainly insulted me.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/06/msg00040.html
If you
Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to
here on the list today in response to my message this morning.
I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to
respond on-list.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be
reasoned but
Hi Bas,
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we
don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on
17:34:25 dondelelcaro Diziet: at least, not while the GR is
Hi Andrey,
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act
On 10 November 2014 10:42, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Bas,
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
17:34:12 dondelelcaro Diziet: I don't think that stating that we
don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can
On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing.
I do find it
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
pattern of
Aigars == Aigars Mahinovs aigar...@gmail.com writes:
Aigars If you do not liek where Ian is coming from with his point of view -
Aigars do not argue with him. Argue with other people. Or, better yet,
argue
Aigars with the facts.
This sounds awfully similar to Don't feed the trolls,
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
handling this. See the Maximum term for tech ctte members thread.
Such a proposal would
Le lundi 10 novembre 2014 à 09:44 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
I think you forget the option that (I think) is the least personal
damaging one:
Option 0: Ask the member to consider stepping back himself.
This has already been asked, several times, by myself and by other
people.
I
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
handling this. See the Maximum term for
This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm
definitely slowing down responses.
Replying to two messages.
Matthew == Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes:
Matthew Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800,
Hi Sam,
I surely hate noone here, thank you for your calming and insightful words.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
I'd assume he was referring to:
If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those
who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision.
If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard
Hi Holger,
(I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
best for Debian, and that their opinions should be respected.)
Here is how I
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
But actually, I dislike (3) even more, for the reasons detailed in the
subthread at [4]. I value standardization a lot. I think that this is
one of the main things that Debian provides. (3) is a big step towards
On 09/11/14 at 13:16 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
I too value standardization. Judging by decisions taking by other large
distributions and upstream development, a fifth, only support systemd
as init system would thus have been the most sensible option. But for
political reasons that's
On 11/09/2014 at 05:26 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
I'd assume he was referring to:
If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if
those who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective
decision.
If
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
or other derived works exist in order to support other init
On 09/11/14 at 14:42 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
or
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 15:08, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We have had scenarios in Debian where maintainers, tired of receiving
bug reports about problems on a specific architecture, decided to drop
support for that architecture from their packages.
True. Yet we didn't forbid them by GR to do so because
Hi,
Holger Levsen:
After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again […]
[…]
I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian […]
Everybody please take a step back and read
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/11/msg2.html
before continuing this
On 2014-11-09, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote:
(I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
best for Debian, and that their
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
Sune Vuorela wrote:
I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
/Sune
[17:35:34]
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
(After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced
wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
The we are currently skeptical wording
[Please CC me on replies.]
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
(After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced
wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
(After repetition of the exact wording of the We aren't convinced
wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
Sune Vuorela wrote:
I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
Thank you for calling attention
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4).
Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to
Josh == Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
Josh For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start
this
Josh thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
Josh pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of
Josh
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical
committee?
An alternative to picking on one committee member would be to disband
the current committee entirely, with an explicit rider stating that the
action should not
Hi,
After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again, I came
to the conclusion that I wanted to publically withdraw my support for Choice 2,
after re-reading it several times and sleeping over it.
So why do I dislike choice 2?
Choice 2 has two paragraphs I disagree with,
Get real man. This is a very important issue in the whole free software
world. Freedom of choice or not, especially for *nix*.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Hi Holger,
I'm afraid that if you want to conduct a personal attack on Ian, you
have to try a little bit harder.
* Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org, 2014-11-08, 20:46:
I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian, someone
who perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte
Hi Jakub,
On Sonntag, 9. November 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
I'm afraid that if you want to conduct a personal attack on Ian, you
have to try a little bit harder.
I'm not interested in personally attacking Ian. At all. But I do think his
_behaviour_ has been quite unacceptable and also I think
Hi again,
after re-reading these threads to find that message-id I missed to reply to
this:
On Sonntag, 9. November 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
You can't decide such a thing single-handedly. Are you also disgusted
that 11 people seconded Ian's proposal?
no, not at all.
cheers,
Holger
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:24:16AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian, someone who
perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte decision (instead of accepting
a group decission of a group which he is part of) and thus deciced to beat
Debian into
Hi Neil,
Philip Hands p...@hands.com writes:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
...
Oh, oops! maybe you should set the Reply-To for bears of little brain
like me.
I'm sure you probably do so normally, and that
Hi,
Philip Hands:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That CfV should have had a Reply-To: line …
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@)
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit :
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the
Note: this is a re-issued CfV, please use the ballot below or your vote
will be rejected. Voting is now open.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, November 5th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, November 18th, 2014
The following ballot is for
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
[ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not
mandatory
[ 2 ] Choice 3:
Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@)
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit :
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
From what I can see [0], the public
48 matches
Mail list logo
