On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:07:20 +0100, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> But people heavily involved with SPI are currently concentrating on
> the elections - probably rightly so. I think a conversation about
> Debian's relationship with SPI is likely to work much better after
> we see the r
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:47:12PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:56:59 +0200, Bernhard R Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >said:
> >
> >>A GR should wait - within reasonable time - until developers
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:36:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You, Sir, are an ass.
I admit that this is a "non-technical topic related to the Debian
project", but still it does not seem to be a useful contribution to
the debian-project list.
Could this discussion maybe be m
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:52:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Debian developers are given automatic status as contributing members in
> SPI, and I know two board members have explicitly encouraged people
> to be involved in SPI recently:
>
> http://wiki.gag.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2006/07/20#2
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:04:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have never seen SPI explicitly solicit official Debian
> project input [...]
FWIW, I started receiving all the internal correspondence between board
members when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address was changed to point to me,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:04:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Yes, Debian does have a role to play when SPI is deciding whether to
> > (for example) support voting software. The actual decision will of
> > course be taken by SPI via SPI's channels, but Debian is entitled to
> > fully pa
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:36:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why? I have very little feeling for what SPI does, as long as
> they do not lose Debian money for the third time. Considering all
> SPI has to do is take in money designated for Debian, and hold it in
> a bank (somethi
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for
the project"):
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:54:26 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Not all of the current and future SPI board are participating here.
>
> I think that is an oversight of all the pe
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for
the project"):
> And this, sir, is an insult. When I titled the GR for changes
> to the social contract editorial changes, I believed that is what it
> was. Telling the world that I was not honest and above bo
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 23:47 -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> That is true. However this ammendment substancially changes the section
> that talks about SPI, so it would be reasonable to have SPI's board look at
> it if they so desire.
> At best they could find some text that ought to be tweeked, and at w
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:54:26 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling
> assets for the project"):
>> As individuals, people who make up the board of SPI can already put
>> in their input. Officially, the SPI board has no s
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:50:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling
> assets for the project"):
>> I am all for managing affairs between Debian and SPI in a
>> civilised, friendly manner -- which should include butting o
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for
the project"):
> As individuals, people who make up the board of SPI can
> already put in their input. Officially, the SPI board has no say
> here -- as individuals, they have the same rights as everyone else
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for
the project"):
> I am all for managing affairs between Debian and SPI in a
> civilised, friendly manner -- which should include butting out of
> things that do not concern us. Should we have a say in whether
* Nicky Schlesier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-24 13:12]:
> Why aren't this packages in your content's.
http://packages.debian.org/spamassassin
http://packages.debian.org/whois
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System
'Five exclamation marks, the sur
Why aren't this packages in your content's.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards
Nicky Schlesier
--
IT-SYSTEME Ronny Seffner | web http://www.its-seffner.de
| mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pirnaer Landstraße 205 | tel (+ 49) 03 51 / 2 00 18 55
D-01259 Dresden
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:20:13 +0200, Bernhard R Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060723 23:50]:
>> So not giving the SPI board oversight on how Debian conducts it's
>> internal affairs is sending an unfortunate message? Perhaps I do
>> think we should send s
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060723 23:50]:
> So not giving the SPI board oversight on how Debian conducts
> it's internal affairs is sending an unfortunate message? Perhaps I do
> think we should send such a message; and indeed, we should consider
> the creation of a Debian F
18 matches
Mail list logo
