Hi aj,
Some parts feel very obvious to me. Am I missing something?
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:38 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs
and uploaded with the minimal checks by a DD in order to review them,
or just get a sense of how
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote for things like
this that I don't really like but that may work out if they
self-destructed in a year unless confirmed by a second vote.
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:12:09AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:38 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs
and uploaded with the minimal checks by a DD in order to review them,
or just get a sense of how
Hi,
On Thursday 02 August 2007 08:12, Bart Martens wrote:
Also, I think that a quick win could be to stop using the term non-DD,
and instead calling all contributors Debian Contributor (DC).
[...]
The term Debian Contributor is at
least honorable, and something to brag about. :)
I like
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Anyway, now Rperl-lover can upload the package on his own, but as a pure
perl robot, he is bound to fuck up. After a year, *you* will need to
kick him to understand how SONAMEs work :)
And yet I'm speaking in favor of the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Anyway, now Rperl-lover can upload the package on his own, but as a pure
perl robot, he is bound to fuck up. After a year, *you* will need to
kick him to understand how SONAMEs work
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:36:06AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
The problems I fear stem from the fact that the DM proposal *changes*
the system we are used to. The advantage of having Debian Maintainers is
that they don't need to go through a sponsor every time, in other words
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So far, the only arguments I've seen of that type are I don't want to
be associated with the project but I still want to maintain Debian
packages and I don't want to go through the NM process just to
maintain a single package. I'm sympathetic somewhat
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something different and then saying we can change it later. It's
always easier to change things before they start.
This is not true in
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone doesn't want to be a DD because the NM process is broken, we
should fix the NM process. If someone doesn't want to be a DD because of
laziness or whatever other excuse, I
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:56:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What happens when you send a single email like that has already been
demonstrated:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html
Add to that that this
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:42:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That was 23rd March. There wasn't a reply, and my access wasn't
removed. Early April was the release, and at that point debconf was close
enough that I don't think I bothered doing anything more until then,
at which point I stayed
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
were against that proposal.
Surely, discussion on -newmaint and most DDs are
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
(Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there
is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages
leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the
other cases
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
Don't let the perfect be the ennemy of the good.
I think one of the places where we're disagreeing is that I don't consider
the current process fundamentally broken.
I don't think so (but it looks like Anthony seems to think so). I think it
works
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
were against that proposal.
Surely,
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, the only way it will get examined is if someone who
thinks it's worth trying has the ability to try it. Otherwise we end up
with endless discussion that just doesn't go anywhere.
Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
striving to have fewer classes.
Does it really?
Yes, it does. Right now, in terms of upload
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is
valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing.
Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote for
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
I doubt this, honestly. For one thing, I doubt that AJ, as much as that
may be tempting, would actually hold a grudge that way for very long; [...]
I also think Aj would be open to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Also, on another front, adding AJ, Joey, and Ryan Murray to a team isn't
exactly helping with getting new people involved who might have more free
time. How many other hats do those three people already wear?
Oh, for me: ftpmaster,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The reason all of that is a problem is that the power to decide who is and
isn't a member of the project has been centralised with two individuals
(James Troup and Joey Schulze originally, then just James, and now Joerg
Jaspert and
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
(ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve it. In
fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for it.
On that score, I agree. I would further say
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:20:32AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If n-m were working well, or even I thought it had any hope of working
well, I expect I'd be all for this being unified with n-m -- after all,
that's what I'd thought
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What happens when you send a single email like that has already been
demonstrated:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html
Add to that that this time there've been explicit threats to blacklist
applicants
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
This isn't prohibited or prevented by the current proposal. Moreover, it
explicitly lists the FD and DAM members as people who can implement what
you are proposing here.
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something
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
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After that meeting [0], I'd assumed it was in Christoph and Marc's capable
hands,
... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
were against that proposal.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:24:36AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
easier to change things before they start.
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
is still under-defined. This is a crappy idea. Imagine a Sven Luther
Under-defined? It lists two criteria for forceful removal: request
from the DAM and request from
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
upload rights for virtually every package by adding the DM to
the Uploaders field and adding the
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices this and does an immediate upload
which
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
notices. I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when some random developer does an NMU on his
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
notices. I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with sponsoring, I don't really see it as a
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you just read the long email I just sent a few hours ago? You
replied to it, so I assume you have noticed it, but somehow I get the
impression that you didn't actually have a look at the content.
I guess I misunderstood this comment:
(2)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:32:12AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
upload rights for virtually every package by
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Really, this GR (despite the appearance due to the initial policy being
worded in the GR) is not about implementation details but about a general
direction that we want to have or not.
No it's not. General directions are
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
(i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
is still under-defined.
Yes. I haven't seen an example of removing a contributor that's worked
well, so I don't have a process *to* define. At
Le lundi 30 juillet 2007 à 20:22 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
The only way I can see for anyone without ftpmaster privileges to
implement it, GR or not, is by automatically re-signing uploads from
DMs with their own keys, which doesn't sound terribly ideal to me.
That hasn't prevented some
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one with someone just making
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one
Anthony Towns wrote:
If there are really that many DDs that are morons that they need to be
dealt with by policy, n-m isn't doing its job.
I'm sure there are quite a few who predate NM
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the GR is needed to avoid James using his DSA privileges to revert
and block the changes and to avoid Joerg using his DAM privileges to
blacklist anyone who participates in the queue from joining Debian in
future.
I neither believe that this degree
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
(ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
it.
This seems like an issue for educating sponsors who are
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
(ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
it.
This seems
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:19:42AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the idea could be implemented, with
better unification with the NM process, [...]
No doubt it could. I think that would be a bad thing, personally.
The NM process is broken. The ideas for fixing the NM process are
directly
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
Rewirting
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:18]:
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
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
Agreed it makes sense to distribute the load on more shoulders. It doesn't
make sense to do it on non .d.o machines and it doesn't make sense to have
two wanna-build instances.
I disagree to that. For example, it is far easier to try things
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:37:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:56:39PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
And so on. The thread you point is
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:00:50PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
uncoordinated work. Maybe we should care more about people that are nice
to users rather about introverted guys that
Hi,
On Saturday 28 July 2007 13:20, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 14:39]:
And yes, sure, one can contribute very well to Debian Edu with just commit
rights. (Currently one can even upload to our archive without being a DD, we
have a seperate keyring (and rules how to get in there) - but for lenny we
want to not
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:05:51AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
possibly get integrated into NM
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...
Okay, I've been avoiding this issue, but the above's an outright lie,
and since DAM and
I find most of this mail very unfortunate, but since I'm one of the people
who doesn't like the current proposal, I wanted to call out this point:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
] 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
]
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate
that. It should be a natural next step that
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
1. it has been proposed by AJ
2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
I'd better complain then.
1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:56:31 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Debian should be about users and working together, the more I see
arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
uncoordinated work.
Hmm. Debian is actually about creating the best OS
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
easier to change things before they start.
At some point you have to actually start however.
As a matter of a fact, I agree with your mail quite fully, and people
that read me about this already won't be surprised. There is though some
bits that you address that wasn't discussed recently yet, so I'd like to
comment on them.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 01:38:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
How to integrate a concept of DM then?
--
First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by
talking to all those involved. There is FrontDesk, DAM and also the
NM-Committee, the latter
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 10:02]:
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
How to integrate a concept of DM then?
--
First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by
talking to all those involved.
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their teams
packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer I think it
would
make
Hi mates
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:32:02 pm Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer I
think it would
On Saturday 28 July 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 08:48:26PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
Essentially the proposal allows non-DD maintainers (we have 900+, see
the thread starting at [1] for details) to upload their own packages IF
AND ONLY IF their
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams
packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 10:02]:
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
How to integrate a concept of DM then?
--
First - by starting in the right area - getting it into
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
- step 2: waiting for an AM.
Step 2: is not long nowadays, maybe 1 month. Well, if people can't
wait a month, then they should not help Debian-we-release-every-10-years
in the first place ;)
I disagree. I was advocated on 7 Mar 2007. I then waited 79 days during which
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone doesn't want to be a DD because the NM process is broken, we
should fix the NM process. If someone doesn't want to be a DD because of
laziness or whatever other excuse, I think the current rules are
perfect.
I don't want to be a DD because
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
And so on. The thread you point is an excellent proof of the fact that
you seem to be quite alone in your point. Honnestly, if you don't like
the project where
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
Why
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 13:27]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
teams
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
Le samedi 28 juillet 2007 à 19:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
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 Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:56:39PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
And so on. The thread you point is an excellent proof of the fact that
you seem to be quite alone
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading d-d-a isn't enough to keep up with everything that's happening
in the Project, and you know it.
But if it's enough for DD, it should be enough for DM. We have many DD who
It's *not* enough for
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:00:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree as well, but it's all that we require DDs to subscribe to.
[That said, we really should work to make d-d-a enough; decisions that
and transitions that affect multiple packages should be announced
there.]
Frankly, there's
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:00:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I agree as well, but it's all that we require DDs to subscribe to.
[That said, we really should work to make d-d-a enough; decisions that
and transitions that affect multiple packages
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:02 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 12:22, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As a subscriber to the debian-med list, I do not share your view of this.
[...]
I therefore do not agree that your example is a valid one - rather, I think
teams/groups like
* gregor herrmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070726 21:49]:
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
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:40, Charles Plessy wrote:
The Debian-Med project is in a growing phase that requires the gathering
of programs and utilities which are easy to package and maintain, and
which we keep in a common SVN repository.
Needless to say, I would be very happy to see this GR
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:02 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 12:22, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As a subscriber to the debian-med list, I do not share your view of this.
[...]
I therefore do not agree that your
On Friday 27 July 2007, Bart Martens wrote:
I agree that some non-DD's simply deserve upload rights. I also agree
that some of those non-DD's waste time asking around for an upload. But
I also think that the Debian Project must be very careful with selecting
the people with upload rights,
maintainers GR. The short text of this post is _I am against the_
_proposal as it is right now and think it does more harm than good_
and so I did vote for Further Discussion. See below for a bit more about
my reasoning, or just skip if you are already bored. :)
The current proposal does look like
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
just to find someone besides Joerg to also read the
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:57:38AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Hi,
Hey,
It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
just to
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:12:02AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix
On Thursday 26 July 2007 16:11, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[2] The NM process rejects some people who have the technical abilities to
maintain packages but who are not in sync with the rest of the community.
I fail to see why we should refuse their technical contribution.
You assess that there are
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
- Not everybody deserves to be DD. [2]
[2] The NM process rejects some people who have the technical abilities to
maintain packages but who are not in sync with the rest of the community.
I fail to see why we should refuse their technical contribution. The NM
process
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, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:48:57PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
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,
1 - 100 of 326 matches
Mail list logo
