Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to
mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)"):
> Ian Jackson (26/07/2012):
> > Uploaders needs to be abolished in favour of multiple
> > Mainta
Ian Jackson (26/07/2012):
> Uploaders needs to be abolished in favour of multiple
> Maintainers. In wheezy perhaps ?
I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 18:54 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 03:29 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> > We also need a general word for "someone involved with Debian in a
> > positive way". "Participant" is clumsy; "member of the community"
> > even more so. "Person" might do but word with a mor
On 07/26/2012 03:29 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Developer, DD
> As per the constitution; includes non-uploading DDs.
> New Maintainer needs to be renamed to New Developer.
>
> [Non-]Uploading Developer
> To distinguish where necessary, but usually we can use
> Sponsor instea
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Heh, like that's going to work in Debian. What we could do though is
> try harder to use the nouns we do have more consistently.
Heh, like that's going to work in Debian.
;-)
Actually I do think introducing new _and better/good_ terms wor
On 07/26/2012 08:37 AM, The Fungi wrote:
> On 2012-07-26 14:29:14 +0100 (+0100), Ian Jackson wrote:
> [...]
>> We also need a general word for "someone involved with Debian in a
>> positive way". "Participant" is clumsy; "member of the community"
>> even more so. "Person" might do but word with a m
On 2012-07-26 14:29:14 +0100 (+0100), Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> We also need a general word for "someone involved with Debian in a
> positive way". "Participant" is clumsy; "member of the community"
> even more so. "Person" might do but word with a more positive spin
> would be nice.
As a long-ti
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper
to mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs
conflict)"):
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:55:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I am not in favour of this change. The p
Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to
mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)"):
> I'm not overly interested in the word developer being eradicated, but at
> the very least having some consistency
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:55:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > We are in the process of discussing a variety of constitutional amendments
> > > to be raised by the tech-ctte that will hopefully end up creating a sort
> > > of bundle of constitutional fixes to vote on. Perhaps it would be good
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:55:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to
> mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs
> conflict)"):
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:15:15AM
Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to
mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)"):
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:15:15AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > We are in the process of discussing a variet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2012-07-26 02:19, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> The above is incorrect. The keyring only contains Debian developers
> which are packagers or members. Note that we have terminological
> issues on this front (the constitution equates "Debian Developer"
Hi Ulrich,
Ulrich Dangel wrote:
On 07/25/12 02:15, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> You don't seem to be in LDAP, nor in the keyring, so no, you're not,
>> unless you're posting under some alias or similar.
>
> I am posting under an alias, but in any case, Debian's LDAP and keyring only
> contain
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:15:15AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We are in the process of discussing a variety of constitutional amendments
> to be raised by the tech-ctte that will hopefully end up creating a sort
> of bundle of constitutional fixes to vote on. Perhaps it would be good to
> includ
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, as the new wording is logically inconsistent. *By definition* a Debian
> Project Member, as the term is being used here, is someone who has voting
> rights. The term "Debian Developer" was being used to distinguish between
> p
On 07/25/2012 02:15 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> ]] Filipus Klutiero
>>
>> > > You are not a Debian developer.
>> >
>> > I am.
>>
>> You don't seem to be in LDAP, nor in the keyring, so no, you're not,
>> unless you're posting under some alias or similar.
>
> I am pos
Le Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:20:47AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> Personally I don't think we need separate terms for voting member with
> uploading rights and those without such rights; in the few cases where
> the difference matters, it's easier (I think also better) to spell it
> out rathe
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:15:15AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:49:06AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> >> Our constitution does not talk about project members, and instead uses
> >> the word "developer".
>
> > In fact, the Constitution
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:49:06AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> Our constitution does not talk about project members, and instead uses
>> the word "developer".
> In fact, the Constitution uses interchangeably "member" and "developer".
> (And that is one of the ba
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:49:06AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Our constitution does not talk about project members, and instead uses
> the word "developer".
In fact, the Constitution uses interchangeably "member" and "developer".
(And that is one of the basis for the slow shift towards "membe
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:00:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, as the new wording is logically inconsistent. *By definition* a Debian
> Project Member, as the term is being used here, is someone who has voting
> rights. The term "Debian Developer" was being used to distinguish between
> p
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:35:10PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero said:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero said:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:42:06PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero said:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:49:07PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero said:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:52:51PM -040
Quoting Filipus Klutiero (chea...@gmail.com):
> >The purpose of debian-devel-announce is for communicating announcements *to
> >people involved with the development of Debian*.
> >
> >You are not a Debian developer.
>
> I am.
Philippe, if you want to prove you're a DD, then sign you mails,
pleas
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:43:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:23:50AM +0200, Ulrich Dangel a écrit :
> > >From http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper:
> > A Debian developer (DD) is a Debian Project Member who has uploading rights.
> this page (and probably others)
Thread broken as topic changes.
In-Reply-To: <500f3c96.90...@spamt.net>
Le Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:23:50AM +0200, Ulrich Dangel a écrit :
>
> >From http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper:
> A Debian developer (DD) is a Debian Project Member who has uploading rights.
Hi Ulrich,
this page (and pr
On 07/25/12 02:15, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> You don't seem to be in LDAP, nor in the keyring, so no, you're not,
>> unless you're posting under some alias or similar.
>
> I am posting under an alias, but in any case, Debian's LDAP and keyring only
> contain a fraction of developers.
This is tr
Hi Philipp,
Philipp Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:31:43PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Please try using complete sentences. While you're at it,
> constructive messages would be more productive than name-calling.
If you think that your messages are constructive, well, you're wrong.
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Filipus Klutiero
> > You are not a Debian developer.
>
> I am.
You don't seem to be in LDAP, nor in the keyring, so no, you're not,
unless you're posting under some alias or similar.
I am posting under an alias, but in any case, Debian's LDAP and keyring
only con
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes:
> The "second highest decision-making body" in question is also our lowest
> conflict resolution body. I for one am not interested in reading the
> outcome of each small claims case.
You have been heard. I've read all of your messages
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:00:37 PM Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Which kind of idiotic distraction?
The one where you continue this pointless thread.
I don't think this thread is pointless; it is simply too noisy.
If it isn't clear to you
already let me try one more
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:36:51AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mardi, 24 juillet 2012 09.03:30, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:31:43PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > Please try using complete sentences. While you're at it,
> > > constructive messages would b
Le mardi, 24 juillet 2012 09.03:30, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:31:43PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > Please try using complete sentences. While you're at it,
> > constructive messages would be more productive than name-calling.
>
> If you think that your messages are
On 07/22/2012 01:24 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, _every_ technical committee decision should be posted
>> to debian-devel-announce. Any time that the TC needs to make a decision,
>> it's already an unusual circumstance, and usually something's gone wrong.
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:31:43PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Please try using complete sentences. While you're at it,
> constructive messages would be more productive than name-calling.
If you think that your messages are constructive, well, you're wrong. You're
repeating the same arguments
]] Filipus Klutiero
> > You are not a Debian developer.
>
> I am.
You don't seem to be in LDAP, nor in the keyring, so no, you're not,
unless you're posting under some alias or similar.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Filipus Klutiero writes:
> The "second highest decision-making body" in question is also our lowest
> conflict resolution body. I for one am not interested in reading the
> outcome of each small claims case.
You have been heard. I've read all of your messages on this thread, and
several other t
On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:00:37 PM Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Which kind of idiotic distraction?
The one where you continue this pointless thread. If it isn't clear to you
already let me try one more time: You've pretty thoroughly alienated the
people that'll decide how the tech ctte communica
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:49:50PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >>
> >> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Filipus Klutiero whined:
>Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> >
>> > although publicity of some resolutions may indeed be useful for a
>> > wide range of developers, I fail to see many who would be interested
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> an analogy with the legal system may make things clearer: the press
>> does not announce every decision made by every judge in a court of law,
>> but it does do so for every decision made by the su
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Yes, conflicts certainly are inevitable. When they escalate to the second
> highest decision-making body in the project, which makes a decision,
> that is clearly important enough that it warrants an announcement to
> the entire memb
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:49:50PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >>
> >> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wr
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> >> Thank you, but I would a
Hi Philipp,
Philipp Kern wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> stay dedicated to
Filipus Klutiero whined:
>Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> >
>> > although publicity of some resolutions may indeed be useful for a
>> > wide range of developers, I fail to see many who would be interested
>> > in the resolution on nod
Hi Lars,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> s
On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 19:33 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > > >> Thank you, but I would appr
Hi Thibaut,
Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 21/07/12 22:35, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :
> Hi Arno,
>
> Arno Töll wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 18.07.2012 02:07, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce
>>> would stay dedicated to important announcements whic
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> stay dedicated to important a
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be usef
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
>In my opinion, _every_ technical committee decision should be posted
>to debian-devel-announce. Any time that the TC needs to make a decision,
>it's already an unusual circumstance, and usually something's gone wrong.
>It's _good_ to inform the whole project about it. It is
Dear tech-ctte,
On Samstag, 21. Juli 2012, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > In my opinion, _every_ technical committee decision should be posted
> > to debian-devel-announce. Any time that the TC needs to make a decision,
> > it's already an unusual circumstance, and usually something's gone wrong.
> >
On 07/21/12 23:58, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> You're complaining about the posting volume of a list that has 13 +
> 17 + 16 + 7 + 8 + 10 + 4 = 75 messages this year, or about 2.6 days
> between posts. Is this a reasonable complaint? I don't think so.
>
> In my opinion, _every_ technical committee dec
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> stay dedicated to important announcements
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 04:38:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> >> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> >> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be usef
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a
> wide range of developers.
Because developers can override CTTE decisions, it's
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> I believe the reason for targeting -announce as well was the initial
> part about a more general principle, preserved in my quoting above,
> which IMO does relate to all D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 21/07/12 22:35, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :
> Hi Arno,
>
> Arno Töll wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 18.07.2012 02:07, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce
>>> would stay dedicated to important announcemen
Hi Jonas,
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-07-17 at 08:07pm, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> On 2012-07-12 14:59, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >=== Resolution ===
> >The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace
> >collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing th
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a
> wide range of developers.
tech-ctte resolutions d
Hi Arno,
Arno Töll wrote:
Hi,
On 18.07.2012 02:07, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would stay
> dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a wide
> range of developers.
While you are right in general I beg to disagree th
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a
> wide range of developers.
Because developers can override CTTE decisions, it's important for the
CTTE to advertise
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> I believe the reason for targeting -announce as well was the initial
> part about a more general principle, preserved in my quoting above,
> which IMO does relate to all Debian developers in general.
Well, more generally, I think we should announce all formal decisions
On 12-07-17 at 08:07pm, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> On 2012-07-12 14:59, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >=== Resolution ===
> >The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace
> >collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that
> >compatibility with upstreams and wi
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:15PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would
> stay dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a
> wide range of developers.
tech-ctte resolutions do fit that bill. The tech-ctte is the highes
Hi,
On 18.07.2012 02:07, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you, but I would appreciate if debian-devel-announce would stay
> dedicated to important announcements which may be useful for a wide
> range of developers.
While you are right in general I beg to disagree that tech-ctte
resolutions do aff
On 2012-07-12 14:59, Don Armstrong wrote:
=== Resolution ===
The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace
collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that
compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases is also
important and that somet
69 matches
Mail list logo
