Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign, > > how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ? > > The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is > nearly insane. > > I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what > would benefit the project the most than one that'd try to do everything > at the same time as good as it gets -- and running the risk of in the > end not achieving much at all. Totally agreed. Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it becomes harder to answer. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question to the Debian community ...
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 11:05:36AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > I'm going to assume that you're alluding to the failed marriage of Sven > and Frans. I have no idea why either of you think I am interested in > discussing the Sven saga, because I am not. Then I recommend you not respond to discussions about it; that seems to work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical committee resolution
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:39AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Well I'm happy at least one person doesn't think it's a lame-brained > idea or too much to ask. I wasn't sure how it would be recieved. I also think it's an excellent idea. It gives a rotating source of follow-through, instead of relying on one or two members of the group who feel differently about the group's obligations to end up doing the follow-through (or dropping it and feeling bad about it). No, I'm not talking about the history of the TC here so don't go looking for precedents; I'm talking about similar groups I've served on in the past. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ccing messages
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:42:18PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > if you didn't cc me, you don't get a response. Use a mailer that announces your preference, or cope with whatever people feel like doing, just like the rest of us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, "So you can make > > effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system > > that is not driven by the current glibc". Nowdays, we don't need to > > do this kind of work which is sometimes executed for system > > bootstrapping. > > Does that work? > > Cross compilation is tricky -- do you know anyone who has done this? > > If debian's glibc can be built on bsd running under bsd's libc, then > that fully satisfies the legal requirements, leaving just the practical > issues. > > Thanks, I do this on a daily basis. Generating the complete set of Debian packages would be very difficult, but also unnecessary if you're willing to scrap a couple of chroots in the process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: ccing messages
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:42:18PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > if you didn't cc me, you don't get a response. Use a mailer that announces your preference, or cope with whatever people feel like doing, just like the rest of us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I hereby resign as secretary
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used > to. > > It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. I probably > shouldn't write this tired at 11:30PM, but here goes. > > I get no joy whatsoever out of the current mailing list discussions. > It is sad to see people arguing so bitterly about pedantic matters in > constitutions and guidlines and policy when that stuff is NOT why > we're here. We're here to make a Free operating system, dammit. > People that are not here to make a Free operating system shouldn't be > here. [...] > I have considered leaving the project several times this year. The > fun of being a Debian developer went away long ago. I maintain > packages for my own utility now, at home and at work, and that's it. +1. I'm dropping about a mailing list a year, which is a pretty slow exit... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 07:06:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:41:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > This is much off topic issue of this thread, but, "So you can make > > effort to build glibc for debian main distribution on another system > > that is not driven by the current glibc". Nowdays, we don't need to > > do this kind of work which is sometimes executed for system > > bootstrapping. > > Does that work? > > Cross compilation is tricky -- do you know anyone who has done this? > > If debian's glibc can be built on bsd running under bsd's libc, then > that fully satisfies the legal requirements, leaving just the practical > issues. > > Thanks, I do this on a daily basis. Generating the complete set of Debian packages would be very difficult, but also unnecessary if you're willing to scrap a couple of chroots in the process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more > > or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates > > the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the > > developers could settle the issue by a GR. > > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to > decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR? After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still looking for an answer to this question. I think that the Technical Committee is a more appropriate solution to this problem; if they don't agree with me then we have to continue down the GR path, but I would like to see a decision one way or the other. -- Daniel Jacobowitz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they refuse to > > > decide, or did only individual member say that they prefer a GR? > > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still > > looking for an answer to this question. I think that the Technical > > Committee is a more appropriate solution to this problem; if they don't > > agree with me then we have to continue down the GR path, but I would > > like to see a decision one way or the other. > > The technical committee has yet to issue any official opinion. In that case, I think it's premature to be this focused on the GRs until that has happened. I at least would prefer to avoid a GR if the Technical Committee's opinion permits. -- Daniel Jacobowitz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2005
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > Hi, > > At the time of writing, less than two hours before the end of > the vote, the standing are still lower than expected; here is a > comparison with recent years: Er Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on April 10th, 2005. Do you mean, "less than two days before"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [stevegr@debian.org: Re: [PROPOSED] Swap the "open" and "official" versions of the new logo]
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:15:40PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 04-Jun-99, 03:49 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that > > the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it. > > Second. That was one thing that always bugged me about the swirl thing > (although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the > un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally. Third. Dan /\ /----\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: [PROPOSED] Swap the "open" and "official" versions of the new logo
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:15:40PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 04-Jun-99, 03:49 (CDT), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that > > the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it. > > Second. That was one thing that always bugged me about the swirl thing > (although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the > un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally. Third. Again. Signed this time. I hope. Dan /\ /----\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ pgpuQKfovtvaF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 03:47:58PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 08:29:03AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > For other ballots, I would be; for this one, I didn't find any discussion > > necessary. I can't see why all discussion of a ballot must occur on the > > debian-vote list. Most of these things being on debian-devel, and could > > remain > > there. > > There is no reason. Howerver, much of the discussion spins off of the > proposals and results and such so the discussion tends to remain on -vote. > The only argument I can see for -vote being a discussion list is volume. > There *could* be people who want to participate in the dicussions who can't > handle the volume of -devel (for a variety of reasons, one that I consider > valid is the cost of d/l the mail for people how pay either by the byte or > by the minute). > > I would object to any rule that discussion *must* be on -vote, but I would > also object to any rule that dicussion *must not* be on -vote. I'll throw in two cents for people who don't have the time to read through debian-devel. I manage to keep abreast of what is going on without that, and I still consider myself an active and interested member of Debian; discussions of issues for which there will be an actual vote are considerably more interesting to me than a lot of the random chatter on -devel. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 09:38:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no > > > discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed. > > > > If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to > > wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (To be kind, I'll assume > > that this is just hyperbole.) > > OK, show me any discussion in the archives (URL's please) I've looked, > and didn't find any. > > The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type responses, with > no attempt to show a justification for the view. ... > > Pretty hard to get any seconds without a discussion :-) > > saying ``seconded'' doesn't count as discussing an issue IMO. I can't speak for the other seconds, but I did have a discussion with Branden before I seconded it. And more specifically, I recall discussing this during the original logo vote, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > * raul (swirl) > > Concept: magic being release from a genie bottle. > > Pros: simple, good associations, already in a good format (EPS) > > Cons: none :) > > This is my favorite of the bunch, except for one thing - even more than > with jeanette, I think the two logos should be switched. I think that > the logo with an added feature should be the official one. (Note that that message is on the non-web-archived portion of -vote) Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:57:36AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Here's my problem. Subverting the process by proposing something that is > tangential to ones aims seems plain wrong to me. We're not sneaky > politicians > here, so why are we acting like them ? > > You went on on to say two other things: > > 1) the logo swap was aired during the vote. > 2) the Modified swirl lost, so should be discounted > > Where was the swap discussed? > > Let me guess: On debian-vote prior to it being published on the archive > pages? > Would that also be the hiding place that was found for the definition of > ``Modified Swirl'' ? > > Is anyone else feeling just a little disenfranchised here? [...] This was a snafu. Listmaster is looking into putting the complete archives on the web. And if any developer wants to search them, the archives in the usual location on master are complete. > As it happens, I voted for Swirl over Modified Swirl at the time, and didn't > bother to change it because I couldn't imagine that anyone was going to try > to > use the relative ordering as significant, given the cock-up of the vote page > for the bulk of the voting period. I think you are confusing what the current vote is about. The modified swirl uses the bottle on neither logo. The swapped swirl would use the bottle on the official logo. > What I don't think we have a consensus on is how precisely that logo is to be > deployed, or whether there should be two licenses, or whether one of them > should include a bottle. > > Looking at the voting record, only 21 people listed both Swirl and Dual as 1. > > These are the only people you can claim definitely wanted the bottle for some > purpose, and some of them may have actually wanted it the way it is, not > swapped. But the Dual logo vote happened first, and was already decided when the New Logo vote occurred. That's not a valid conclusion. > In fact there is a much stronger case for suggesting that we agreed that > there > should be two licenses, since at least it was completely clear what that vote > was about, and yet this latest vote seems likely to put one of those licenses > out to pasture, along with the bottle that will never be used. The bottle WILL be used. By some vendors, at least. I have every intention of using it if I ever do something deserving an Official logo. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I second Branden's proposal. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ pgp35nvUsltCY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I second Branden's proposal. > > But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Please check your mailer. When it left my exim queue, it was signed. Dan /\ /--------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I second Branden's proposal. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I second Branden's proposal. > > But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Please check your mailer. When it left my exim queue, it was signed. Dan /\ /--------\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
