Russ Allbery writes:
> I am not the project secretary, just one random developer, but for
> whatever it's worth, I think this interpretation of the constitution is
> incorrect and the TC does not have the ability to override a delegate.
I am the current TC Chair; what follows is my opinion (whic
Sam Hartman writes:
> I think the easiest way for you to do that is to withdraw your budget
> request and for you to do the conference logistics on your own. In
> effect, accept the idea that putting this too close to Debian puts the
> project in an awkward position and remove that. If we forc
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> I had thought that there was room for a dissenting opinion, but
> clearly there isn't.
You can think what you like - the requirement is that you treat people
in Debian with respect, which means (in this case) that if you use
pronouns to refer to them, you endeavour to
Miles Fidelman writes:
> On 1/10/19 5:28 PM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>
>> ...which is why, of course, the Debian project has said that we won't
>> accept racist/sexist/homophobic/etc language in our spaces, because we
>> want a broad range of people to feel w
Miles Fidelman writes:
> At the risk of repeating myself: I'm a firm believer in applying
> Postel's law to email discussions - "be conservative in what you do,
> be liberal in what you accept from others." Personally, I try to
> observe both parts of it, but I see more and more people doing just
Jonathan Wiltshire writes:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:26:01AM +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
>> >> 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote:
>> 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?)
> [...]
>
> There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden
> by General Resolution.
This isn't really an appeals process in
Hi,
There have a few posts in recent discussions by people suggesting (or,
at least, appearing to suggest) that there is a conflict between
technical excellence and our Code of Conduct (or aiming to increase the
diversity of our membership, or similar).
I think there is no such conflict, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Matthew Vernon writes:
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
I said that if I'd not received enough seconds by to
Hi,
On 10/03/14 08:58, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> I second the general resolution proposal below:
Thanks; with you and Iustin, I have 3 seconds now; 5 are needed for the
GR to go to a vote.
Regards,
Matthew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi,
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> I am still waiting for your answer to my concerns before I make my mind
> on seconding this GR:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00024.html
>
> The problem, I think, is that the discussion was drawn onto procedural
> technicalities rather than d
Hi,
Matthew Vernon writes:
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
This has only had one second. In order to not prolong things
indefinitely, I'll withdraw this GR
Hi,
Steve Langasek writes:
> Given the ambiguity about whether this GR vacates the earlier TC decision, I
> think it would be best to simply include in your GR text a statement that
>
> The Debian project reaffirms the decision of the TC to make systemd the
> default init system for jessie.
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Russ Allbery
>
> > Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> > I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
> > any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
> > individual deve
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
> default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
> doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
> having a decision about the default.
I think given my current text says "T
Hi,
Stuart Prescott writes:
> Your rationale does not explain how the normal policy process has failed to
> deliver the outcomes required by the project. I think the project should
Sorry about that; I rather thought that the TC failing to rule on the
issue was failing to provide clarity on th
Andreas Barth writes:
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> clause and keep the current decision (because that is also wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly
to a vote so that the project can st
Joey Hess writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think we're still in the middle of our process, which I understand
> > that a lot of people outside the project find baffling and protracted.
>
> Well, not only outside the project.
>
> The tech ctte has always operated in the past by coming to a c
Michael Hanke writes:
> not sure if it has been mentioned somewhere already, but the Proceedings
> of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (aka
> PNAS) has a paper on the evolution of software in Debian.
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/14/1115960108.abst
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO this is much more likely to be effective if you first get a
> consensus that there is, in fact, a problem that needs to be dealt
> with. The posts in the other thread suggest you haven't got such an
> agreement.
I think the amount of heat generat
Hi,
Christophe Rhodes is on hold. In his own words:
The event I was waiting for has resurfaced; I applied to be a
developer (I think) before the big debate on non-free registered,
certainly in my consciousness, and if you don't mind I would like to
see the resolution before going any further; I h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > Care should be taken to choose maintainers that recieve their fax on
> > > the computer, so it can be used directly withou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Care should be taken to choose maintainers that recieve their fax on
> the computer, so it can be used directly without another quality loss
> by scanning.
This means that people without FAX machines can't be application
managers, then?
> I think it is good that
Jim Westveer writes:
>
> On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Dale Scheetz writes:
> >
> > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement
> > except
> > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot,
Dale Scheetz writes:
> I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random people
having a copy of my passport digitised (worse still,
Dale Scheetz writes:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get
> > hold of a scanner?
>
> Why should we require them to have access to a computer?
Oh come on, be reasonable. That's a non
Dale wrote:
> Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the
> > person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw
> > good ID, and that if I get mail signed/encrypted with that key that it
Dale Scheetz writes:
I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here,
since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited)
knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text
below because it seems to me to be the most succinct form of his
argument.
> The gain is that he presents his face to the group, in a form that we can
> archive for "our" records, saying, "yes, we have seen this guy". This gain
> is to the group as well as to the applicant. There is nothing to be gained
> at this point (and much to put at risk) by presenting a false
Dale Scheetz writes:
> It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> require of incoming members. Isn't it?
No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get
hold of a scanne
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
Well indeed, but I'd expect to get a gpg-signed mail from my applicant
as part of step 2, and I could then check the signature.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Em
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this is wrong too. People can still run non-free software with
> Debian if they like; as amended, the social contract would still
> explicitly state that, and that we will support people who so choose.
As is being pointed out (at length and with mu
33 matches
Mail list logo
