Hi,
On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the
> short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we
> specify that the Project Secretary writes them?
I think it has always been a mix of both that has been
Hi,
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Given the low voter turnout in most GRs, we should rather extend the
> voting period to give more chance to DDs to vote.
If lengthening the period would result in that, I would happily accept
it but I think this is not really the case (or only
Hi,
thank you Russ for driving this discussion forward. I'm pretty happy
with your proposal.
On Tue, 05 Oct 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no discussion of the timing of
> the GR discussion period, which I expected to be more controversial. The
> scheme
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> But I digress, if we really want to be bold and show leadership, not
> only from the DPL but form the project, we should go a step further and
> make the Debian project not only a project to release and support a free
> software operating system,
Hi Phil,
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Philip Hands wrote:
> I've been pondering how it might be possible to spend more of Debian's
> money, and it occurred to me that we could allocate a budget to each DD
> which they could spend on pretty-much anything (as long as, for Debian
> funds, the expenditure is
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Nobody is addressing me, but it's a long-held tradition that we all
> jump to whatever mailing list posts that in some way itches us ;-)
Definitely. :-)
> Given that both candidates, plus the previous DPL, already answered,
> and I feel they all
Hi,
thanks for your answer!
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Um, no.
> Money is power.
> The DPL should help the project achieve its goals.
> The DPL should not use the project's money to achieve their own
> personal agenda.
I would like to respond two things:
1/ The DPL would not
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> > 1/ How do you explain this lack of interest?
>
> I don't think that lack of interest is the problem here, but I do think
> that Debian contributors tend to be already starved for time, and trying
> to get them to do more is like trying to tap
Hello,
as a followup to my former question that dressed a negative picture
of the DPL role in the last years, I'd like to make a proposal and
see what you all think of it.
There are quite a few software projects that have hired staff to help
smooth the internal working of organizations, I know
Dear Debian DPL candidates,
when I look back at my old platforms[1][2]3] I can already see a trend
where we move from "concrete changes that we want to see in Debian" to
"some vague idea of how we want to run the project" but this trend seems
to have continued and amplified to the point that this
Dear DPL candidates,
when I was younger, I dreamed to be paid to do Debian work. But that was
not possible, and that's the reason why I started my own company Freexian
16 years ago. Through those years I always kept this goal in mind (it's
part of my personal mission statement for Freexian).
Now
Hello dear DPL candidates,
I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse:
https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-on-discourse/75
Please create an account and answer there. At least it would give you a
feeling of how it looks like to use
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Reframing
> -
>
> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I mean
> yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system, but we do
> have other components in the distribution with multiple or non-portable
>
Hi,
I'm not a candidate but the topic resonates with me and I want to share my
thoughts also because I am in the position to do or fund some work related
to all this.
In Kali, we have software that are close to impossible to package because
they have plenty of dependencies and sometimes even
Hi,
On Mon, 01 Apr 2019, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > So if i had to decide how to implement this technique, i think the
> > simplest thing would be to move every
> > https://salsa.debian.org/foo-team/libfoo to
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libfoo and let the debian/ grouping
> >
Hello Sam & Martin,
I have read your platforms and found both of them very interesting
but also very focused on one big point: sustainability/innovation through paid
positions/projects for Martin, mediation, bringing compassion and better
decision making for Sam. (I hope my short summaries do not
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:10:13PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > It seems like having the Debian Project and DPL working to get more
> > paid developers might run into some of the same issues. In particular
> > there might be a perception that
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > - it's a position where you are often alone, and lack feedback
>
> This is true in the limit, but I, and a number of other former DPLs,
> have often made ourselves available to the acting DPL to act as a
> "sounding board".
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
I would suggest introducing a transitional clause that would state
something like:
As a transitional measure, the terms of all current members that
exceed 4 years will only expire every 6 months, in order of
seniority.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.
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 Solveig,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Solveig wrote:
I can write specific amendments, if somebody is willing to sponsor them :)
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't but this should not replace the inspirational part of the
CoC.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The danger of having a list of do nots is that people will do
something which is not on the list, and then point to it and say see,
it's allowed by the code of conduct when pointed out that they're being
a dick.
It's quite common to have an short
Hello Francesca,
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
Lack of coordination among the different sources: that's a first
problem, indeed.
Debian-publicity (the ML) should act as a node for all the publicity/promoting
people in Debian, but it doesn't.
How so? I have the feeling that all
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
- Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines
longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output
(e.g., ls -l).
- Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages.
- Do not send test
Hello,
while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status
in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed
that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it.
Moray, why did you vote against? Does that still hold or did you change
your mind in
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Moray Allan wrote:
On 2013-03-12 14:06, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The Debian ecosystem includes many economical actors, be it companies
or individuals, but we tend to hide those aspects as if they didn't
exist.
I don't think that's quite the case. Perhaps Debian's
(starting a new thread)
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Moray Allan wrote:
If there was general support then we could look at organising a
funded program, but I would need a lot of persuasion before wanting
to get into the question of Debian picking specific individuals to
pay for their work while
Hi,
my previous mail targeted the topic of using Debian's money
(20130312094330.ga30...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com). But the topic
of money in Debian does not have to be limited to that.
The Debian ecosystem includes many economical actors, be it companies
or individuals, but we tend to hide those
Hello Lucas,
I've read your platform and I share your 5-years goals and I agree
on most of the suggested intermediary goals to bring us closer to
the long term goals.
That said, it's not clear to me how you plan to achieve them. Being
the DPL doesn't grant you more time to implement them
Hi,
this is a question to all candidates.
Debian's infrastructure and processes have grown organically over the
years, with all the strengths and weaknesses that it implies. Sometimes
it's a good idea to step back and look whether some of those need
to be amended/replaced/dropped/etc.
Based on
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I do wonder why your question is for lucas specifically? It would be
interesting to hear other candidates on this too.
Because I find that Lucas has included more technical and concrete goals
than others have done and it's difficult to find volunteers to
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
3) For what kind of things?
Since you are asking the question, isn't it up to you to come up with
ideas/examples? :) I find it difficult to discuss such things in the
general case.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Moray Allan wrote:
In fact I fear that
Hi,
On Fri, 04 May 2012, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/05/12 at 00:32 +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
interact constructively with our community.
Hi,
you might have read that Stefano is trying to organize
discussions/collaboration between companies that have a strategic interest
in Debian:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-companies/
Wouter and Gergely, what do you think of this project ? Would you continue
to promote it if elected ?
Hello,
there's a discussion going on on debian-project about entering an
agreement with DuckDuckGo to get some sort of affiliate commission from
the money that DuckDuckGo would earn from traffic tagged as coming
from Debian.
1/ To Wouter and Gergely: this discussion touches several sensitive
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is great!! perhaps we can get rid of the abomination that
is vi and get everyone to use the one true editor all at once.
I suggest you change your tone. You have the right to not share my point
of view, but there's no need to be
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
The exciting potential of dpkg source v3 to me is that it potentially
opens an area that had stifled most innopvation, by allowing subtypes of
the source format to be developed. But this area is still relatively
closed to innovation; dpkg's maintainers
Hello,
those questions are for all candidates. By standardization I mean that
something should be used as default tool unless reasons exist to use
something else (I do not mean that we sould impose something to
everybody for all cases, but it should still be what's used in 95% of the
cases).
1/
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
is less of a burden?
They are not.
I can't accept the premise that we can't do better at this level.
I managed to get my own project through the end (it's deployed,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
archive is very difficult:
[...]
How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
is less of a burden?
The only way is to make it easy
Hello,
another question to all candidates (this question is inspired by a recent
event).
Most of you have answered that it's not possible to regulate the heated
discussions but it's possible to set a good example. If only the leader
behaves properly, it will still be difficult to make the
Hi Julien,
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
Compare Random Joe Developer is soliciting funding for his debian work
vs Debian is soliciting funding for Random Joe Developer's debian
work. The former is fine IMO, has no risk of being seen as a Debian
thing, and can be done without
Hi,
thanks for your answers!
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
Imagine a DD contacts you, she wants to setup an infrastructure to finance
Debian related projects (i.e. paying people to enable them
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Margarita Manterola
margamanter...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org
wrote:
What tasks do you have in mind that you plan to delegate?
There are a bunch listed
Hello,
this is a question to all DPL candidates.
Imagine a DD contacts you, she wants to setup an infrastructure to finance
Debian related projects (i.e. paying people to enable them to work on the
projects that they'd like to do for Debian) but she wants to avoid the
main mistakes made during
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Aug 11 10:12, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Personally I don't think we should do a GR to recommend a freeze or release
date.
We already used the DPL election to push a release, when it was *long* due,
but
I don't think we should push a
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the
wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we
need done and that doesn't involve
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
discussion and/or voting of
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Turning this into a question for you: why the core-team you are
imagining as a backup should not become the actual maintenance team
instead of staying in the backup role?
.. to make the core-team the actual maintenance team and asking the
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Anthony Towns wrote:
Over the next twelve months, what single development/activity/project
is going to improve Debian's value the most? By how much? How will
you be involved?
Having such a discussion is really interesting, I would not limit it
to -vote and DPL
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL
candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a
reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages,
so find those people and start
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
How do you define relevant? The vote is run because someome proposed a
GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to
have a link to mail where they
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
- To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
the vote:
The Proposer of each
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
The big goal, for me at least, and hopefully for the other participants, is an
eventual agreement on what the constitution says, or alternatively, a broadly
accepted amendment of the constitution that clarifies unclear matters and
settles the
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
If the GR proposal does not say
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people
want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as
a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will
change, and we'll have this
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
I think the interpretation of supersede that has been tendered by the
previous secretary is
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
in performing their duties.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if that is on
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Also, resolving to do
something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and
adhereing to that.
No. It's simply taking a decision on the best way to reach
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
You made comments, and in
874p1a6l0n@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com were instructed to
get the approval of the proposer of the option in order for the
secretary to change the title of the option. FWICT, you either did not
attempt to do so, or
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
for
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it boils down to this: are the issue orthogonal, or are they
just different solutions to the same issue? I have presented my
argument for why I think they are the same; can you explain why those
arguments do not hold, and these are
Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you
will manage to hurt the project by doing that.
Honestly, at this point, I would really wish that you retired as
secretary because there have been too many conflicts between you and
various DD while your secretarial work
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a decree of
the government that tells us how the law will be applied.
A decree of the government does not do
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds.
| Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes
|
| The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks
| the Debian Account Managers to postpone
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
With binary blobs inside or outside of debian, my computer will run just
the same. It's just that outside main it won't be supported by debian --
at least not officially. It will
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
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
delegates have the powers to decide when
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
What do the DPL candidates feel about this? Do we require a GR to
direct how account creation and keyring management is to be handled?
Given my other answer in this thread, my answer is hopefully not.
But if discussions and improvement proposals don't
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
If you get elected, what will you do to prevent people from waiting
for weeks (and usually for months) to see their account created after
DAM approval?
I think the problem would be
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's
great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step
independent double-checking in that task
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
(For example, answered all my questions about the social contract,
DFSG, BTS, etc. in a good way leaps out at me. Not wrong, as such,
but that's an unusual way to put it - has any applicant ever been
described as answering them in a bad way?)
Either he made
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Depending on the quality of the report (which doesnt mean quality of AM
or NM, also amount of mails and quoting style the people use and
stuff like that), its between 30 and 60 minutes.
If one does a reject you can count at least 2 hours, as you then
(resending to list, I responded privately by error)
Hi,
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
If you get elected, what will you do to prevent people from waiting
for weeks (and usually for months) to see their account created after
DAM approval?
Account creation is not the only
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It's well known that small
task (when they take less than 5 minutes) are usually best done on the
fly instead of accumulating them. [...]
Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. See
Hi,
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Saturday 15 March 2008 22:40, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, it may be a good idea to have regular IRC conferences
where the DPL is available to answer questions. A good time would
probably be a week after bits have been posted so that the
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's
great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step
independent double-checking in that task.
Honestly I don't know. But if it's not, then it gives us at least
a precise idea of
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
OTOH, experience shows that enforced addition of new members doesn't
work as one would expect.
What case are you referring to?
I don't think it ever happened up to now. In most cases, the additional
members have been approved but only by a
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
(And since this thread is supposed to be questions for the DPL
candidates, I will add one: some time ago, a DD was sending emails on
-devel whenever the discussion was offtopic, to ask for it to be
transferred or stopped: what do you think of this
Hi Clint,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
Why isn't dpkg in collab-maint on Alioth? Why should it be or not be?
dpkg has been maintained in various VCS repositories since 1999 (CVS, then
arch, then SVN, and now Git), it's a natural choice for a software
maintained and further developed
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It's important to have quality and consistency in the work done on such a
package and thus it's good that the maintainers in charge can selectively
grant (and revoke) write rights to the repository.
Following a remark on IRC, it's also important
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:14:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Furthermore the average skillset of the DD includes packaging while it
doesn't necessarily include programming and maintaining a complex piece of
software like dpkg.
Doesn't
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
If you were elected DPL for the next term, what would you do about this
GR and when? How would you ensure that the declassification can happen
in a timely manner and fulfil all the requirements? What would your
declassification team look like
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
revision control repositories of a team where the person leading the
team is active and asks
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
#436093 for those following along at home.
It could be dpkg as well.
Can you justify this assertion?
I have worked _with_ Guillem Jover and Frank Lichtenheld and _they_ have
granted me commit
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
#436093 for those following along at home.
It could be dpkg as well.
Can you justify
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
But I think that it is important for any DPL candidate to be able to
be a conflict solver, and - as the recent dpkg case has shown -
conflicts over commits do happen, and can get quite bad.
In both cases I have made proposals to go forward but the
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
Continue doing lots of stuff for Debian. And since the DPL role will be
handled by 3 persons, we should hopefully be more visible as a whole too.
If one member is busy with real life
Hello,
I hereby candidate for the DPL election. I'm going to propose a team of 3
persons. More details when the platform is finished.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The same question can be asked as will you be our DPL team candidate,
or are we still looking for someone to fill that role?
I'm also interested in that answer. I know it's not yet campaigning time
but I really want a DPL team option this year again
1 - 100 of 326 matches
Mail list logo
