Hi,
As I currently understand it, the General resolution to recall
the project leader stands with enough seconds; and that the requisite
seconds were there on the 21st of September. One second was
rescinded.
The attached file shows my current understanding of the state
of aff
For anybody interested about flaming (because in Debian we doesn't know
this problem) :)) there is a good little research about communication
over e-mail:
Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?
This is an abstract:
"Without the benefit of paralinguistic cues such as gest
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.01.0241 +0200]:
>> Rebuilding every package really doesn't buy you that much in the
>> way of security.
>
> This is arguable and I don't want to go there. The reason I am
> pushing for this is because of two of my clie
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Is it not part of the process of becoming a DD (or sponsorship of
> packages for non-DDs) learning the "responsible" way to build packages.
> That is, developers are taught to use tools like pbuilder or sbuild in
> order to ensure that packages build cleanly. I'm not s
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.31.1641 +0200]:
>> Please read up on the regular (every few months) discussions about
>> "source-only uploads" in the list archives. (Capsule summary: yes,
>> it would be easy to do, but there is no consensus that it
Yavor Doganov wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:01:51 -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>> [...] To do so would be to undermine our pledge to keep the Debian
>> system "100% Free", as our Social Contract puts it. [...]
>
> Thank you very much for the entire message, I hope that it will be
> influe
Sven Luther wrote:
> Accordying to James Troup, whom i asked exactly that at some past debconf,
> this is because if there is some lag in the x86 buildd, then loads of user
> will complain to them about non-installable packages, and the
> ftp-masters/buildd administrators being volunteers and not
Henning Makholm wrote:
> As a random data point, take DSA-1116 (a buffer overrun with no known
> exploit, in a quite popular piece of desktop software), where I happen
> to have a timeline:
>
> July 1 - reported privately to security team, with patch
> July 6 - bug goes public through upstream's
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever
>> have been necessary:
>>
>> Package: freedoom
>>
>> ...as we could just distribute the original proprietary WAD files by iD
>> software in main.
>
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>What we put in "main" carries our imprimatur, whether we like it or not.
>>While it is true that we have qualified reservations about all sorts of
>>things in main, and these are frequent fodder for discussions on -legal
>>and occasionally other m
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0700, Steve Langasek
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> > For the record, this is not
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
> resolution
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution.
*There* lies the crux of the disagreement.
(If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material,
or
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
>>> to send me a couple of paragraphs i
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
> ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
> the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
> exchange,
Oooh, "lengthy". Just email the damn sponsors and
Hi,
There seems to be a discrepancy between the way I have been
interpreting the constitution, and how the original author meant it
to be interpreted. I have thought about this now for a few days, and
I now believe that the filibustering issues might not be as grave as
I thought. Howe
Hi,
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]:
> I have gone through the last couple of months of mail
> archives, and came up with the current state of the proposals we have
> before us.
As there has not been many new arguments lately, and the outcome of this
GRs is
16 matches
Mail list logo
