On Tue Sep 14 12:25, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
> made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the differ
On Tue Jul 06 12:56, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > DMs and DDs are maintainers and in some cases, DMs are also uploaders.
> > "Debian Contributor" seems nice enough, as Christoph Berg already
> > suggested.
>
> So where would that leave translators, art people
were the selection of
> time, manner, place, attendees, and proposed agenda; who actually
> attended; what actually was discussed; and possible aftermath which
> may have resulted from these discussions?
I'm confused as to why you are expecting to be involved in or be informed about
have a clear consensus that that would be OK then fine;
> otherwise I'd like to run this through the GR process to make sure the
> project as a whole agrees.
Isn't that a TC job? overruling developers?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;d rather not upload it if people using Debian can't use it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;s caveats all
apply. We would need a licence which allowed it to be redistributed by
Debian and used by all of our users. The reference for this is Debian
Policy 2.2.3 and 2.3:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
hings to move to testing, but we didn't freeze, at
least partly because other developers hadn't planned well enough to time
their uploads with the announced freeze date.
The release, however, will be when it's ready. We have said nothing
about how long the freeze will be. I'm hopeful that the scheduled
freezes will allow us to reduce the freeze time.
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ng about being less aggressive.
To be fair, I thought your line and Raphael's addendum was oere of line
and definitely not a helpful addition to the discussion.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nable, is restricting specifically upload
rights of people who don't use them. This would tie in with the
finer-grained membership I have on a couple of occasions proposed. I
don't think that we should stop them being DDs, however, and I do think
the bar should be low for getting them back
ke a personal
attack than it should do (it doesn't quite make sense as written, which
is why I think it's probably a typo, but it's close enough that this may
not be picked up if english is not your first language). I don't believe
Manoj was intending to be personally ins
nically incorrect applications so that DAM doesn't have to do those
and doesn't waste time on those applications.
As Steve says, that's only a bottleneck if DAM is blocking on getting
applications from FD and in that case there's no reason for them not to
pull them from the F
milar result
(you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will
probably get them right in practice).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s an opportunity to
increase our quality control in reform, not decrease it.
Maybe it would be a good time to return to the discussion I tried to
start a while ago [0]?
Matt
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/03/msg00053.html
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
W I would read 4.1.5 along with the SC and DFSG to mean that 3:1 is
required when voting on something which if repeated ad-infinitum would
be equivalent to replacing the SC, DFSG and constitution but without
doing so because any other interpretation is absurd and makes the 3:1
pointless. I am completely aware that you and others disagree, and hence
the point of this vote so we can pick a position on it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
are agreeing to definitely do something which the
social contract said we would not, but we aren't permanently modifying
it".
Perhaps we need a vote option which says "these things definitely aren't
something we need 3:1 for, regardless of what you think they are"
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is
> > why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset.
>
> Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms
> instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS.
That would be great, unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a grey
area here, hence the problems.
Please do suggest better terms.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
think the most recent fiasco
> has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the
> first place.
Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea.
Do you want to draft that?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would change the constitution so that supermajority
> applies to whole votes and is decided at the beginning of the process. In
> short:
I think this is quite a good idea, but I think orthogonal to the items
in this ballot.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ally my point of view is that 3 requires supermajority, 4 does
not and that 5 and 6 should be rejected by the secretary as invalid.
I hope that has explained things better and you can see where I'm coming
from,
Matt
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00091.html
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
dation Document (in which case
they require a 3:1 majority) or they must explicitly say that this
is an interpretation and they do not conflict. Any vote which
contains an ambiguous option will not be run until it is clarified"
This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/05/msg3.html
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
x bugs
> even on architectures other than their own.
Yup, this is what I'd like to see as well.
So far I don't think I've seen anyone objecting to the overall approach
though, which is good. I think it allows us to start discussing more
specific implementation details.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
many things here I agree with, I don't think we can tackle
them all at once here. I'm just trying to work on one thing.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Shall we say decoupling it from specific technical
abilities such as upload rights and package maintenance?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is a waste: their skills and passion are better employed
> in continuing their good work on Debian.
Oh, absolutely, I really want to streamline it where possible. I've been
saying this since I was in NM (-:
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2. http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/AltReformedMembershipProcess
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
mustn't release with DFSG problems
I'm sure there are other related positions I've missed off too.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
k unstable, make all the uploads you've
been putting off for the last few monnths!
Matt
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2009/msg2.html
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/01/msg00132.html
2. http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny
--
Matthew Johnson
signature
hat we
expect to release in the final product. Once that's available (hopefully
soon!) then the release team will be very aggressive about ignoring bugs
or removing packages.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
supermajority
- Eliminate supermajority
- Determine who decides on supermajority
- Decide what to do about options which are ambiguous about
supermajority requirements (eg, refuse to run such a vote)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
gineer
the thing (-:
> Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:
>
> * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
> Matthew Johnson express interest in this).
>
> * changes to the Social Contract (I'm not
ces it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they
have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ble ambiguity. Note
that I don't think that's a good reason to call a vote, but to propose
an amendment... maybe.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
able. I would like this to be on the
ballot so that everyone can put it below FD and make it clear that we
don't think this (or, alternatively, vote it in and then all the people
who thought we had a binding social contract can take a fork and work on
that)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> > include
e should
include SC/Constitution amendments to make them explicitly state that
position (and hence 3:1. I _really_ hope we can make 3:1 on this vote,
the project is in a sad state if we can't)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e the early ones easier to attain. The reason for creating
posts/roles/statuses which are more restricted than full access is that
you can make it correspondingly easier to be granted them and therefore
they can be used to help people not lose motivation before they manage
to get the f
in the parent post which I do agree with
in the new MIA procedure. If you have not uploaded or voted in anything
in two years, removal would seem sensible.
0. http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/AltReformedMembershipProcess
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s? Obviously, one could still group
> privileges (e.g. to be able to vote, you have to endure
> debian-private).
This is what I was trying to propose last year[0,1]
Matt
0. http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/AltReformedMembershipProcess
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg
e) and will be voting for.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
er and hence who's system I would trust. This system is called
OTPW, has PAM integration and is in Lenny. Markus wrote it to fix some
security flaws in the design of other OTP systems such as OPIE.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of cases these uploads are being made to unstable
and will only be affecting users who have accepted some amount of
breakage and disruption by using pre-release versions. Another couple of
days is not going to cause any harm.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/nmstatus.php?email=filipe%40icewall.org
5. https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=vincent.fourmond%409online.fr
6. https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=edmonds%40debian.org
7. https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=jredrejo%40edu.juntaextremadura.net
8. https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=jeremy.bobbio%40etu.upmc.fr
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
42 matches
Mail list logo
