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
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill
any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of
non-packagers into Debian. [...]
I hope it won't kill that
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
I've added assistantNeil McGovern under Secretary to
webwml/english/intro/organization.data
Hope that's OK,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow
Hi Jörg,
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
*WONT* do anything except creating needless work?
You could give them an incentive to do so...
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
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or
-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.
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
*WONT* do anything except creating needless work?
You could give them an incentive to do so...
WTF do you
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 Tuesday 28 October 2008 12:14, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
You could give them an incentive to do so...
WTF do you think did I do with my mail? Would you please start to *read*
before you reply?
Oh, thanks, I read before I replied... maybe you can make yourself understood
better and *write*
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 Tue, Oct 28 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill
any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of
non-packagers into Debian.
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
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)
Oh well. Some people write ugly perl code, some write ugly VHDL. Not
the language or tools fault, just bad programmers.
Which is often not the case on cheap devices (often usb)
* 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
[Robert Millan]
Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
problem in long-term.
Speaking of enforceability --
Your GR will have the effect of removing linux-2.6 from unstable. Only
it won't, because we all know that will not actually happen. Thus the
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
---
The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
the linux-2.6
[Robert Millan]
Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
community (Social Contract #4);
2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
You think it speaks ill of people when they are demotivated by
people saying nasty things about them, or ascribing horrible motives to
them? Amazing. Me, I would be liable to just break out some beer and
watch some movies rather than
I second the following proposals, as I believe that they should be voted
on:
(Robert Millan's unammended Option 1:)
Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social
30 matches
Mail list logo
