Robert Millan wrote:
> OTOH, if you just tell me to "go elsewhere", I'm sorry but I don't want to
> look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a
> commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.
The only one who works on destroying the project at t
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
>
>> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
>> think, and hold another vote.
>
> Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
>
> Proposal: hand Robert Millan
Robert Millan writes ("Re: Results of the Lenny release GR"):
> Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote. I don't like that we made
> an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no
> point in arguing about it.
>
> On
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
> (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.)
>
A VERY BIG +1
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you
> > > want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.
> ...
> That goes for
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous,
> and that his "interpretation" is based on his speculation on what he thinks
> the developers want.
No, instead of whining and acusing people you should try t
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> > This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
>
> Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
> considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be ca
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
>
> Bdale,
>
Robert Millan (12/01/2009):
> And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
> long as necessary.
We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Robert Millan writes:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
>> the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
>> DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitutio
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
> > reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
>
> I disagree completely.
>
> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
> interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also pl
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level
> > of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the
> > non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated
> > Manoj
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
> et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
> concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
> government as an or
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I m
Robert Millan writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
>> the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That
>> decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All el
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > > If things go much further we'll end up
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Ean Schuessler writes:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> > an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
>
> Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
> d
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
> going to be adopted at present.
There's nothing to be "adopted". The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> > to the questions he's raised in this thread.
>
> I made a subst
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
> here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
> the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
> you or anybody.
I do
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > > > to delay Le
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
> desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> > Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
> > say,
> > this would be a good time.
>
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> > your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> > think
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > > to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
> > > and sanctioned
Robert Millan dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100]:
> (...)
> You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. The
> way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware. They don't
>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> > Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> > Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
>
Robert Millan wrote:
> - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these
passa
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Robert Millan" wrote:
> > The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
> > Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
> > as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are cry
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> > editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> > because Bdale's actions go f
Robert,
I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.
As for trying to bully people about consitution and
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I m
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
This is not true.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
at
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.
> > > If
> > > the ball
Ean Schuessler writes:
> - "Russ Allbery" wrote:
>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
>> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
> Some people cannot just leave well
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to
> imposing his desires
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 08:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
> > > opinion on the fact that option 2
- "Russ Allbery" wrote:
> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the
> delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not a
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but I can also
Ben Finney writes:
> Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> to the questions he's raised in this thread.
I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't
like it.
I don't
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> might be feeling that way.
D
- "Kalle Kivimaa" wrote:
> Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
> does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
> interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution).
> The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Ben Finney writes:
>>
>> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
>> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
>> > resp
Ean Schuessler writes:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
interprete GR re
- "Robert Millan" wrote:
> The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
> Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
> as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this.
Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear abo
> > Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
>
> Seconded.
+1, seconded too.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
> > response to the questions he's raised in this thread.
Number of people wou
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
>
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers
> > what they think, and hold another vote.
>
> Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
>
> Proposal: hand Robert Mi
Ben Finney writes:
> Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
> response to the questions he's raised in this thread.
My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging
substantively with t
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
> * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
>
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> > think, and hold another vote.
>
> Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
>
>
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> think, and hold another vote.
Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
--
Adeodato S
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> >> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> > Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
> > say,
> > this would be a good time.
>
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
>
> It has to be
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable
for a lot of wh
>> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
> this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
(No
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide wh
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> > your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
> > opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
>
> I'm not sure I agree with your sense
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:45:48AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > However, analysis of the voting results in this and prior GRs relating
> > to similar issues in prior releases indicates to me that Debian
> > developers in general would pref
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:45:48AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> It is my opinion that the text of the winning GR option says nothing
> explicit about any of the bugs currently tagged lenny-ignore except
> those relating to firmware blobs.
>
> However, analysis of the voting results in this an
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:13 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> However, your announcement seems to assume these only concerned kernel
> packages. This leaves the message open to interpretation, it could mean
> any of the following:
>
> - You assume the release team no longer intends to ignore DFSG
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 04:54:25PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
> results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay!
>
> Details of the outcome and how various op
67 matches
Mail list logo
