Anthony Towns writes:
> The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance
> or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would
> act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the
> systemd maintainers was far from the most friend
On Tuesday, 18 de November de 2014 15:01:42 Matthias Urlichs escribió:
> Hi,
>
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> > The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a
> > proposal.
>
> Or, if that does happen, it should force that member(s) to recluse
> themselves from voting on it.
F
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> The policy shouldn't make it possible for a CTTE member to file a
> proposal.
>
Or, if that does happen, it should force that member(s) to recluse themselves
from voting on it.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> "Charles" == Charles Plessy writes:
Charles> Le Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a
Charles> écrit :
>>
>> Specifically, I would like to ask Debian Developers to contribute
>> (positively) to TC discussions when relevant, in order to help
>> the
On 11/16/2014 10:28 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> In the absence of that, it seems quite understandable to
> interpret this as yet another attempt by the TC to undermine systemd.
It's nothing but that exactly that, not more, not less. The decision
which init system Debian would use was already made a
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Specifically, I would like to ask Debian Developers to contribute
> (positively) to TC discussions when relevant, in order to help the TC
> get a complete understanding of the issues, their consequences, and
> possible resoluti
Hi,
I think that everyone will agree that we are having a big crisis about
the role of the TC in Debian. What saddens me deeply is how some of us
framed this as a "Debian vs the Technical Committee" fight. The
Technical Committee _is_ Debian. If we feel it's malfunctionning, it's
our problem as De
]] Anthony Towns
> On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> I hope that he doesn't
> actually view this TC override as an attack on the systemd maintainers.
>
> ... this is the TC providing technical guidance when
> asked to do so; and if the TC comes to a
On 17 November 2014 05:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> > A decision which lead to another great Debian Developer leave the
> > ship!
> > Great Work!
> This demonization of the Technical Committee for doing their job under
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
> > >libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
> > >
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
> >libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
> > systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:16:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 5. We therefore overrule the decision of the maintainer of
>libpam-systemd binary package. The Depends entry
> systemd-sysv | systemd-shim (>= 8-2)
>should be replaced by
> systemd-shim (>= 8-2) | systemd-sysv
A
12 matches
Mail list logo
