Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:51:08PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core > team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt > Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for > other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, > I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and > know how to help them. I must say, in my experience, Martin qualifies as one of the most get-a-holdable people in Debian. I've never had a problem getting in touch when I need something from him, and he has also often brought information to my attention on his own initiative. -- - mdz
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying > and outrageously abusive language. No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null. -- - mdz
Re: Final call for votes for future handling of the non free section GR
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 10:34:49PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of writing, > the polls shall close for the GR resolving future handling of the > non-free section. At this point, with 433 unique voters, we are still > 21 voters shy of 50% participation. However, the voting GR only got > 160 people casting votes, and the constitutional amendment for > foundation docs got 242 voters, though the DPL elections garnered 488 > voters. We are not doing so badly compared to previous GR's, though I > had hoped for greater participation on such a critical issue. Is there any way to verify that one's vote has been received? I sent in a vote some time ago, but can't recall if I received a confirmation email or not. -- - mdz
Re: Branden's Platform in German, Spanish, Italian, and (some) French
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:28:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As I balance, I think we should make it clearer to bug submitters that > > they can re-open bugs and that feedback is encouraged. > > What about where a bug is closed by the maintainer on the mere hope > that it has been fixed by upstream? > > I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian > Marillat is a prime offender) that "this bug is now fixed in > upstream", and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package > has been uploaded. That is a bug in the maintainer. > Or had a bug closed because "upstream won't fix it". Or had a raft of > bugs closed when a new upstream release happens, and when I ask: "are > you sure this is fixed, nothing in the changelog mentions it", I'm > told that it's my responsibility to check and reopen the bug if it's > still there. Likewise. -- - mdz
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns > said: > > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation > > of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of > > It certainly was against what I took the social contract to > be. I never imagined that Debian was about only part of main being > free, indeed, as Bruce has stated, I, too, was under the impression > that the SC and the DFSG applied to everything on the Debian CD. I do not see how it can be maintained that these were "editorial changes" when there is clearly a significant number of developers who believe that the meaning of the Social Contract was changed (to the point of forcing action that was not forced before). -- - mdz
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their > understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes. My assumption would be that we would continue to support the packages in sarge. If the Social Contract somehow prevented us from doing that, would it not also (directly) prevent us from continuing to distribute the problematic packages? -- - mdz
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security > > > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their > > > understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes. > > > My assumption would be that we would continue to support the packages in > > sarge. If the Social Contract somehow prevented us from doing that, would > > it not also (directly) prevent us from continuing to distribute the > > problematic packages? > > I agree that the implications are probably the same for providing > ongoing security updates as they are for continuing to distribute the > packages as-is; I would just like to hear from those responsible for > both that they agree about what the implications under this particular > GR *are*. Otherwise, I definitely think the GR needs revising. I guess I'm punting then. Iff we can agree that we can continue to distribute the release as Debian, then we can continue to distribute security updates for Debian. Given that from time to time we find that there were oversights as far as freeness, and we correct them without purging them from releases that we continue to distribute, the existing doctrine seems to be that the release could stand. -- - mdz
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:28:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:02:42PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > > I'm offline at the moment and the exact URL escapes me, but this list is > > on www.debian.org and was created about 2 yaers ago. > [...] > > Release manages is, ever since Richard Braakman became release manager > > about 2 years ago. If you look at the URL I mentioned above you will see > > the exact delegation notice. > > The URL you mentioned above which is offline, and which escapes you? What > good is that going to do anyone? I believe Wichert meant that _he_ was offline at the moment, not the document. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:51:08PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I stay in constant contact with a wide range of people involved in core > team. Just to give two examples, I'm in regular contact with Matt > Zimmerman (security) and Pascal Hakim (listmaster), but the same goes for > other people and groups. By staying in regular contact with those people, > I have a very good understanding of their work, of their problems, and > know how to help them. I must say, in my experience, Martin qualifies as one of the most get-a-holdable people in Debian. I've never had a problem getting in touch when I need something from him, and he has also often brought information to my attention on his own initiative. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying > and outrageously abusive language. No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for future handling of the non free section GR
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 10:34:49PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of writing, > the polls shall close for the GR resolving future handling of the > non-free section. At this point, with 433 unique voters, we are still > 21 voters shy of 50% participation. However, the voting GR only got > 160 people casting votes, and the constitutional amendment for > foundation docs got 242 voters, though the DPL elections garnered 488 > voters. We are not doing so badly compared to previous GR's, though I > had hoped for greater participation on such a critical issue. Is there any way to verify that one's vote has been received? I sent in a vote some time ago, but can't recall if I received a confirmation email or not. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branden's Platform in German, Spanish, Italian, and (some) French
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:28:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As I balance, I think we should make it clearer to bug submitters that > > they can re-open bugs and that feedback is encouraged. > > What about where a bug is closed by the maintainer on the mere hope > that it has been fixed by upstream? > > I have been told more than once by Debian developers (Christian > Marillat is a prime offender) that "this bug is now fixed in > upstream", and had the bug closed then, even though no Debian package > has been uploaded. That is a bug in the maintainer. > Or had a bug closed because "upstream won't fix it". Or had a raft of > bugs closed when a new upstream release happens, and when I ask: "are > you sure this is fixed, nothing in the changelog mentions it", I'm > told that it's my responsibility to check and reopen the bug if it's > still there. Likewise. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation > > of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of > > It certainly was against what I took the social contract to > be. I never imagined that Debian was about only part of main being > free, indeed, as Bruce has stated, I, too, was under the impression > that the SC and the DFSG applied to everything on the Debian CD. I do not see how it can be maintained that these were "editorial changes" when there is clearly a significant number of developers who believe that the meaning of the Social Contract was changed (to the point of forcing action that was not forced before). -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their > understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes. My assumption would be that we would continue to support the packages in sarge. If the Social Contract somehow prevented us from doing that, would it not also (directly) prevent us from continuing to distribute the problematic packages? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security > > > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their > > > understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes. > > > My assumption would be that we would continue to support the packages in > > sarge. If the Social Contract somehow prevented us from doing that, would > > it not also (directly) prevent us from continuing to distribute the > > problematic packages? > > I agree that the implications are probably the same for providing > ongoing security updates as they are for continuing to distribute the > packages as-is; I would just like to hear from those responsible for > both that they agree about what the implications under this particular > GR *are*. Otherwise, I definitely think the GR needs revising. I guess I'm punting then. Iff we can agree that we can continue to distribute the release as Debian, then we can continue to distribute security updates for Debian. Given that from time to time we find that there were oversights as far as freeness, and we correct them without purging them from releases that we continue to distribute, the existing doctrine seems to be that the release could stand. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > I suppose most the proposers feel the same. Why they resort to such a > desperate means is something to think about, IMHO. Having thought about it, my conclusion is that they are behaving irrationally. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:18:34PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't think
> he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail sent to
> them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
Was that before or after the repeated badgering in public forums including
debian-devel{,-announce}?
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stop the madness (Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:51:51AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > So what technical issues are there? And please reply with your ftp-master > hat on. All we hear is "there are issues and ftp-master will post > something soon" but you never say what. Consider the situation from their perspective. They have work to do in order for amd64 to enter the archive. From a certain group of developers, they face accusations of "stalling"[0], announcements made in apparent attempts to shame them into action[1], a general resolution designed to attempt to force them to complete their work, and other disrespectful behaviour. No Debian developer should need to tolerate this. We are all volunteers, and our purpose in associating with each other is to cooperate. There is no opposition to the amd64 port, and therefore no enemy in this situation. You are attacking your teammates. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00036.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/07/msg1.html -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:13:38AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > On mar, 2004-07-13 at 21:41 +0100, James Troup wrote: > > If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive, > > they're mistaken. > > Are you trying to say you would work against the decision of the > majority of developers? The meaning of his sentence was clear to me, and that was not my interpretation. > By not communicating, e.g. not explaining why you're not doing $stuff, > you're giving the impression that the reason is your incompetence, and > people start insulting you. Have you considered the impression which is given by the insults? > If you're already working in this direction, why should you feel attacked? I think that the public accusations and insults may be contributing to that feeling. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for candidate Walther
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:42:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > It's fair to ask users to upgrade, but it's not fair to ask them to do so > every 6 months. Many organisations will want to spend 6 months testing a > new release before rolling it out. I've no objection to releases every 6 > months (though I'm not convinced it's entirely practical within Debian), > but we need a support cycle that's longer than that. Ubuntu supports each > release for 18 months, even though they release every 6 months. Do we have > the resources to do that? Currently, we barely have the resources to keep up with one release. When real life events subtract from the free time of the security team, we often fall behind. The age of the stable release is a real concern here; the older it gets, the less code we're able to share with others who are fixing the same bugs, and so the greater load placed on Debian itself. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question to all candidates.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:27:04PM -0300, Blu Corater wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:53:51PM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > How do you see the relation between Debian and Ubuntu in the future? > > > > Note that the LWN article about the DPL election has some quotes from > > the candidates about Ubuntu and Debian at: > > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/127031/> > > > > Your question is probably (at least partially) answered there. > > Problem is, you need to be subscribed to read it. ...until next week. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LWN (Re: Question to all candidates.)
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 09:25:32AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Since October of 2002, HP has sponsored a subscription to LWN for all > interested Debian developers, so this shouldn't be an issue for anyone > eligible to vote in DPL elections. And thanks for that; it's been a great benefit to Debian and to LWN. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:28:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:02:42PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > > I'm offline at the moment and the exact URL escapes me, but this list is > > on www.debian.org and was created about 2 yaers ago. > [...] > > Release manages is, ever since Richard Braakman became release manager > > about 2 years ago. If you look at the URL I mentioned above you will see > > the exact delegation notice. > > The URL you mentioned above which is offline, and which escapes you? What > good is that going to do anyone? I believe Wichert meant that _he_ was offline at the moment, not the document. -- - mdz
