Steve Langasek dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:53:02PM -0700]:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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 possibilit
Good Evening Kurt:
I have carefully read your complaint about Richard Stallman, and while I
believe everyone should be entitled to an opinion on values, I find your
condemnation of Stallman to be unfounded, and not relevant to software
development, particularly Stallman's position on abortion
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons-ng
Version : 0.17.0-1
Upstream Author : Sergio Costas
URL : https://gitlab.com/rastersoft/desktop-icons-ng
License : GPL-3+
Programming L
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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 fi
Thomas Goirand writes:
> I have to say I'm a bit disappointed to read some wants to change the
> voting system because of what happened during this GR. Yes, the voting
> system should be improved if it is possible to do so. But this GR
> shouldn't be the main reason/motivation.
There are a few d
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
>> accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
>> without having it be sponsored. These two rules ma
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nilesh Patra
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, nil...@debian.org
* Package name: node-jmespath
Version : 0.15.0+dfsg
Upstream Author : James Saryerwinnie
* URL : https://github.com/jmespath/jmespath.js
* License
Simon Richter writes:
> A core component of the operating system we ship is so complex that it
> needs to be maintained by full-time employees. This has effectively given
> the corporation employing these people veto power over our technical
> decisions, because even though the software they ship i
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I think you should start with a lower severity and consider bumping it
> to serious once you're down to a manageable number.
agreed. thanks for changing my mind, Julien!
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debia
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:45:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Debian is a political project that promotes the autonomy of users vis-a-vis
> > large organizations such as corporations and governments. It does this by
> > promoting the creation of free software, and by fostering a community
On 2021-04-20 12:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone
else
feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.
A single person whom we trust to upload anything to our archive.[1]
If the person thinks there is something left that
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
> votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.
I dispute this statement. Some people said that.
I disagree that voting secrecy is (sensibly) possible.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:11:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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
* Wouter Verhelst [2021-04-20 13:50]:
Not sure whether you consider this an issue, but I don't see that as a
problem. There is a difference between "we can't reach an agreement and
therefore decide on a no-outcome vote" (which the default option is),
and "we have considered all the options and d
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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 t
Hi Eduard,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:49:56PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> > political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish
> Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
> > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
> > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 h
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
>> period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
>> that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure
>> that shorter dis
On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure
that shorter discussion periods would only happen
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted
> amendments but not new ballot options, which makes little logical sense
> and cons
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Adam Borowski
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: pcm
Upstream Author : Intel
* URL : https://github.com/opcm/pcm/
* License : BSD-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : tools for Intel-specific proce
On 4/20/21 12:10 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Instead, some people viewed this as an election about how neutral Debian
> should be. Some people viewed it as a discussion of how much we should
> support rms.
> Some people focused on what we should say about rms.
> And that's okay.
> We'll never entirel
On 2021/04/20 00:10, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The sorts of abuses I was talking about have to do with powers of the
> original proposer to muck with the process.
> Steve could have dragged the process out as long as he wished by
> accepting amendments.
> Under a strict reading of the constitution, Stev
23 matches
Mail list logo
