On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I vote D > U > O > V > F.
I would appreciate it if you could reply to self with signed mail
re-stating this.
Thanks,
Richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> editors.
Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
decisions he can not make?
I also suggest you re-read Neil's text on the su
On 07/02/14 16:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
That's plain wrong.
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Le dimanche, 9 février 2014, 12.33:02 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> On 07/02/14 16:43, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another
> > package, which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
>
> That's plain wrong.
Fair enough, I was being im
Hi Steve,
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 13.07:54 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Here's what I think is the right technical policy, that we should be
> addressing with this resolution.
>
> - Packages in jessie must retain compatibility with sysvinit startup
>interfaces (i.e., init scripts in /etc/
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 12:49:37PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I have carefully considered Ian's current proposal for a process and
> schedule to reach a next ballot on the init system issue, and do not
> believe it is the best way for us to proceed.
>
> The fundamental problem is that I remain a
Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 14.27:25 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> (…), what I've seen suggests that systemd integration is currently in
> a state that would cause terrible regressions for many server users.
Le samedi, 8 février 2014, 14.18:39 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> I vote F U D (…)
Quite frank
On 09/02/14 at 12:21 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> > editors.
>
> Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
> decisions he ca
Hi,
Michael Gilbert:
> I'd be happy to see a change post-jessie, but I feel like it is a
> self-imposed rush to push anything through for jessie.
>
Given that certain other distributions switched to systemd umpteen months
ago, I see that less as "rushing" and more as "we're late to the game and
d
Hi,
Joerg Jaspert:
> Its not understandable why the heck there cant be a simple vote between
> the various init systems now and whatever other votes on whatever
> statement around this area later.
> Especially when we read "Its clear that systemd would win". So make it
> win, let the project move
Hi,
Michael Gilbert:
> The logind issue is legitimately blocking some progress, but that only
> more clearly illustrates the fundamental problem. That logind issue
> is the one that needs referral to the TC, but no one has done that
> yet.
>
I don't think so. Gnome wants a logind implementation,
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> I vote UDOFV.
So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
for the casting vote).
This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
potentially agreeable ballot all around, and had stated his
disappointment
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > I vote UDOFV.
>
> So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
> for the casting vote).
>
> This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
> potentially agreeable ballot all around, and had stated his
>
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
> > policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
> > package follows from their status as package maintainer
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> I sincerely hope that the project will now accept this vote's result.
> Instead of, say, pulling a GR.
As painful as the GR process is likely to be, and as much as I hate saying
this because of the emotional and enthusiasm drain that it's likely to be
for many people,
Bdale Garbee writes ("call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie"):
> I have carefully considered Ian's current proposal for a process and
> schedule to reach a next ballot on the init system issue, and do not
> believe it is the best way for us to proceed.
This unannounced CFV is an a
Keith Packard writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system for
jessie"):
> Let's finish that vote then and move on.
Once again Bdale has proposed a vote on his own motion.
However, my own proposal was on the table and has not been withdrawn.
Bdale chose to put forward his ballot ent
AFAICT from the constitition it is not possible to immediately start a
vote on the chairmanship of the TC, unless the post is vacant.
Arguably, this is a bug. However, I need to work with what I have.
I hereby propose the following TC resolution.
The Technical Committee has lost confidence i
Ian Jackson writes ("Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee"):
> AFAICT from the constitition it is not possible to immediately start a
> vote on the chairmanship of the TC, unless the post is vacant.
>
> Arguably, this is a bug. However, I need to work with what I have.
>
>
> I hereb
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee"):
> Ian Jackson writes ("Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee"):
> > I hereby propose the following TC resolution.
> >
> > The Technical Committee has lost confidence in the Committee's
> > Chairman and requ
I hereby propose the L versions from git:
== dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==
Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
tolerable.
Maintainers are encouraged to acce
Ian Jackson writes ("Init system Call for Votes, Ian's drafts"):
> I hereby propose the L versions from git:
>
> == dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==
>
> Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
> a specific init system to be pid 1, although d
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee"):
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Deposing the chairman of the Technical Committee"):
> > I hereby call for votes.
>
> I vote
>1. Y (TC has lost confidence in chairman)
>2. FD
I should expand on this. The Constitutiona
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 07:24:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AFAICT from the constitition it is not possible to immediately start a
> vote on the chairmanship of the TC, unless the post is vacant.
>
> Arguably, this is a bug. However, I need to work with what I have.
>
>
> I hereby propose th
Ian Jackson writes ("Init system coupling call for votes"):
> I hereby call for votes on the following resolution:
>
>The init system decision is limited to selecting a default
>initsystem for jessie. We expect that Debian will continue to
>support multiple init systems for the forese
I hereby call for votes on the following resolution:
The init system decision is limited to selecting a default
initsystem for jessie. We expect that Debian will continue to
support multiple init systems for the foreseeable future; we
continue to welcome contributions of support for a
Hi,
Following this bug report for several months now this is really becoming
a farce. Who is in charge calling for votes, and why don't you have a
closed voting procedure?
Of course the people voting later has a advantage against the others.
Have you ever heard of game theory? This is like schedu
On 10/02/2014 6:21 AM, "Ian Jackson"
wrote:
>
> Keith Packard writes ("Re: call for votes on default Linux init system
for jessie"):
> > Let's finish that vote then and move on.
>
> Once again Bdale has proposed a vote on his own motion.
>
> However, my own proposal was on the table and has not be
I hereby call for votes on the following resolution
If the project passes (before the release of jessie) by a General
Resolution, a "position statement about issues of the day", on the
subject of init systems, the views expressed in that position
statement entirely replace the substanc
Ian Jackson writes ("Init system GR override call for votes"):
> I hereby call for votes on the following resolution
>
>If the project passes (before the release of jessie) by a General
>Resolution, a "position statement about issues of the day", on the
>subject of init systems, the vi
Hi,
Russ Allbery:
> > I sincerely hope that the project will now accept this vote's result.
> > Instead of, say, pulling a GR.
>
> As painful as the GR process is likely to be, and as much as I hate saying
> this because of the emotional and enthusiasm drain that it's likely to be
> for many peop
Svante Signell writes:
> Following this bug report for several months now this is really becoming
> a farce. Who is in charge calling for votes,
The Debian constitution is quite clear about this: any member can propose
a vote and call for votes immediately or with a discussion period at their
di
Following my most recent emails, three separate well-meaning people
have suggested that perhaps I should step away from the computer for a
bit.
One correspondent said it looked like I had "gone postal". It is true
that I am absolutely furious. Livid. I can't describe in words how
angry I am. I
do not reply
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/21239.57931.522878.612...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby call for votes on the following resolution
Equivalent language reviewed by our project secretary was included in my
resolution. Is there some particular value you see in running this as a
separate resolution?
Bdale
pgp0Lg4UR_bki.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Apparently I can't write filter files either
--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own.http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-re
Hello TC,
I hereby request that you begin the procedure for removing Ian Jackson
from his position in the TC. He has consistently derailed debates,
engaged in dishonest tactical voting methods, and tarnished the good
reputation of the TC. He is a nuisance to the Debian project and a
dishonest
Serge Kosyrev writes:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > I vote UDOFV.
> >
> > So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
> > for the casting vote).
> >
> > This trumps the fact that Steve was in the midst of drafting a
> > potentially agreeable
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Friedrich Gunter said:
> Hello TC,
>
> I hereby request that you begin the procedure for removing Ian
> Jackson from his position in the TC. He has consistently derailed
> debates, engaged in dishonest tactical voting methods, and tarnished
> the good reputation o
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 07:32:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on my own formal proposal.
> Options on the ballot:
>
> DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>
> UT u
Friedrich Gunter writes:
> Hello TC,
> I hereby request that you begin the procedure for removing Ian Jackson
> from his position in the TC. He has consistently derailed debates, engaged
> in dishonest tactical voting methods, and tarnished the good reputation of
> the TC. He is a nuisance to th
Hello everyone,
I want to remind everyone on the committee that our quorum on votes is 2.
Given the current situation, and given that Ian is taking a break from
committee activities for a few days, I think it would be wise for us to
refrain from meeting that quorum on any new vote for a little wh
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:41:38AM +0400, Serge Kosyrev wrote:
> Serge Kosyrev writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 19:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > I vote UDOFV.
> > > So, this vote effectively gives systemd the win (assuming Bdale opts
> > > for the casting vote).
> > > This trumps the fact
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:07:56PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 14.27:25 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > (…), what I've seen suggests that systemd integration is currently in
> > a state that would cause terrible regressions for many server users.
> Le samedi, 8 f
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:55:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I want to remind everyone on the committee that our quorum on votes is 2.
I understand that there might be confusion on what this quorum
means exactly, and what Steve's vote on those has as effect.
The quorum is
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:55:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I want to remind everyone on the committee that our quorum on votes is
>> 2.
> I understand that there might be confusion on what this quorum means
> exactly, and what Steve's vote on those has as effect.
> T
On 10 February 2014 06:41, Serge Kosyrev wrote:
> False. Three messages on this list brought this conflict of interest
> into light:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2810 by Anthony Towns
> [...]
> There was no answer.
So, fwiw, I thought the above was kind of mean on my
Although I am not a Debian Developer; much less a member of the Debian
CTTE, I must support this request.
Bear with me, this will be a bit of a long email; I am not known for my
brevity. Also, apologies if my formatting drives some of your mail viewing
programs insane (sorry!).
In the time that I
48 matches
Mail list logo
