> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter writes:
Jonathan> On 2021/04/19 20:18, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>> The vote was actually two votes:
>>
>> a) Should Debian respond publicly as a project? (the "if) b) How
>> should such a response read? (the "how")
Jonathan> I agree with
Hi!
On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 15:11:21 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I would like to propose a mass bug filing on source packages that miss
> support for build-arch or build-indep targets in debian/rules.
Thanks, that'd be great!
> There are currently 411 packages in testing that do not include tho
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:37:01PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Simon,
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> > project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> > FS
Jonathan Carter writes:
> I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
> still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
> think anyone should feel too much pressure right now to come up with
> solutions, and I'd urge any group of people who are bra
Hi Russ
On 2021/04/19 21:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm helping hash out some ideas in private only because framing the
> problem and brainstorming possible solutions requires a ton of back and
> forth...
I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
still fresh in our col
Quoting Jonathan Carter (2021-04-19 20:37:32)
> On 2021/04/19 20:18, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > The vote was actually two votes:
> >
> > a) Should Debian respond publicly as a project? (the "if)
> > b) How should such a response read? (the "how")
>
> I agree with you, I've said something similar b
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Our current processes work best, I believe, if proposals are written in
> the open, so that if people disagree with the proposed texts, they can
> start working on their amendment right away, which is much more
> difficult to do under the time pressure of a GR procedure.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
> strategic abuse.
This asymmetry guards against a GR discussion being allowed to continue
inde
Hallo,
* Simon Richter [Mon, Apr 19 2021, 06:37:01PM]:
> Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish
Catch 22?
Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
discussions. No
On 2021/04/19 20:18, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> The vote was actually two votes:
>
> a) Should Debian respond publicly as a project? (the "if)
> b) How should such a response read? (the "how")
I agree with you, I've said something similar before, although instead
of saying it was two votes, I'd rath
Hi Sam,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Certainly in the systemd process there were a number of short comings
> that came to light that are worth improving:
>
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in way
Am Montag, dem 19.04.2021 um 11:30 +0800 schrieb Benda Xu:
[..]
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.
That's neither what the option said nor was intended for. The vote wa
Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 14:04 +0200 schrieb Jonathan Carter:
[..]
> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
> vote.
I think this is wrong. And here is why:
> Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
> respond to an external situation.
The
> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
Theodore> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
>> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
>> this > issue" implies that the
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> Debian is a techni
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:11:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I would like to propose a mass bug filing on source packages that miss
> support for build-arch or build-indep targets in debian/rules.
+1
> There are currently 411 packages in testing that do not include those
> targets, according
Hi Lucas,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:11:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Those targets were made mandatory in Debian Policy 3.9.4 (released in
> August 2012). From the changelog:
> * build-arch and build-indep are now mandatory targets in debian/rules,
> implementing the Technical Committ
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 14:05 +0100, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
> > this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
Hi,
I would like to propose a mass bug filing on source packages that miss
support for build-arch or build-indep targets in debian/rules.
Those targets were made mandatory in Debian Policy 3.9.4 (released in
August 2012). From the changelog:
* build-arch and build-indep are now mandatory target
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.
The vote in fact shows the opposite. That interpretation of the result
woul
On 2021-04-19 02:46, Brian Thompson wrote:
Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of
the
FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
Debian is a technical project where peo
On 2021-04-19 08:57, Jonathan Carter wrote:
That's more than just a big assumption, I'd go as far to say that it's
a
big leap to assume that from that option. Additionally, you're assuming
that that attempts to fix the problems in our voting system would
somehow make us more political? How do
Hi Benda
On 2021/04/19 05:30, Benda Xu wrote:
> I would like to congratulate you for becoming our next DPL.
Thanks!
>> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on
>> the back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in
>> our methods for making decisions.
25 matches
Mail list logo
