On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:13:38 +, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hereby call for a vote on the resolution below, which I sent round a
> draft of on Friday and formally proposed yesterday:
-8> -
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:51:37 +, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This time can we _please_ try to get quorum ? You must send in your
> vote within 7 days of me sending this message, for it to count, ie by
> approximately 2007-12-06 19:50 +.
-8> -
> 1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: TC voting and amendment procedure"):
> No, I have not seen any reason to overrule the maintainers in this
> entire thread. I don't see how I could have indicated that any more
> clearly than I already have. [...]
I thought that in your message of 2 Dec 2007 11:13:30 +100
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:00:31PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
> > name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity.
>
[ argument that it wasn't any
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> Here's my latest draft of a libconfig resolution. No-one seems to be
> suggesting that either package is entitled to the name so I have
> removed that option.
Have any of the rest of the committee (besides AJ and I) any comments
or opinio
I think we probably have enough bandwidth (or will do shortly) to take
on another item from our todo list. #429671 on username policy seems
to me to be where we can most obviously improve the situation so I'm
going to start there.
The problem which Marc Haber (Exim maintainer) is trying to solve
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:35 +, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
>> Here's my latest draft of a libconfig resolution. No-one seems to be
>> suggesting that either package is entitled to the name so I have
>> removed that option.
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
> mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
> REMAIL option, is c
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:52:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Perhaps we have different ideas about the proper way for TC members to
> behave after our positions have become clear on the main question at
> hand, and the main substantive questions have been fully explored.
The substantive questio
9 matches
Mail list logo
