Hello,
here's my question to the candidates[1]:
Please name three teams in Debian:
1. a team that works well and in a sustainable way, and how a DPL can
bring thankfulness and appreciation;
2. a team that works well but not in a sustainable way, and how a DPL
can help bringing
Hello Neil Lucas,
assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason, not packaging new upstream
versions in unstable, etc) and is not really cooperative (closing
Hi Brian,
On 27/03/14 at 19:54 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the
current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts
are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to
change the status quo?
I
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason, not packaging new upstream
versions in unstable, etc) and is not
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:12:51AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
this use was my intent in 2008 when I added this field, following the release
of version 3.8.0.0 of our Policy, that closed bug #65577 asking that
“copyright
should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian
[ questions for candidate below, see Q: ]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:25:44AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
There are also good reasons for not keeping them in the team: they might
be perceived as badge collectors by the rest of the team, or as people
who like to express their opinion and
Hi Neil Lucas,
the DPL has limited powers on the member list of the technical
committee. Especially §6.2.5 says that he can agree with the committee
to dismiss one of the members.
What is your stance on disruptive members in the committee?
Do you think it applies to some of the behaviors
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process
more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for
nominations, 3 for compaigning, and 2 for voting. We could reduce that
to 3/4 weeks, with:
-
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation?
What if they are in vacation for 2 weeks?
So, in fact, what you really want to do is to compare the probability
that a DD is AFK for 2 weeks with that that she is AFK for 1
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But
today, it's probably less
On Friday 21 March 2014 17:48:02 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
Generally, my impression is that many Debian contributors do not fancy
travelling that much, or are just too busy, and thus don't really like
to attend too many such events.
While I recognize that
- I don't know many DDs in person
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:56:50PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
as intermittent internet access
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But
today, it's probably less
Hi Gunnar,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:55:35PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
So, back to the case: What's your take on this issue? How much can one
part of the Debian universe of subprojects expect the money it
generated be available for its future? Should we set a clear number?
On the specific
14 matches
Mail list logo
