On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:33:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If you're going to make this a precondition before some power becomes
> operational, you need to more be clear about when it's met. I think
> you might be better off removing some of the motherhood and apple pie
> from this document to
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> Got it. This is an essential component of my proposal - that somebody gets
> explicitly empowered by a general resolution of the developers to handle
> problems with teams expanding; and because DP
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:11:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> No, it doesn't _compel_ the DPL to do anything. Because the DPL can
> always claim to have done such a verification. At best it encourages
> the DPL to act in a reasonable way.
>
> I agree that it is good to encourage the DPL to act
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> Because this compels the DPL to first verify wheter teams follow these
> rules, and then act only if they don't do so. It doesn't give the DPL
> a carte blanche to add members to teams, an
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:33:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > You didn't quote that clause fully. It says "if the team fails to make any
> > additions or removals as described above". The "as described above" part is
> > integral, it's not logical to disconnect it and make it optional, is it?
>
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:11:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The first is: have you, as the person driving this process, made sure
> > to bring it to the attention of the current infrastructur
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:11:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm sorry to come into this at this late stage but I have a couple of
> questions.
Well, it might be late for the pace I'm hoping for, but really, it's only
been two weeks in discussion :)
> The first is: have you, as the person drivi
Josip Rodin writes ("infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> Take four, just added the rule explicitly handling the case where DPL and
> team disagree on which members are latent.
I'm sorry to come into this at this late stage but I have a couple of
questions.
T
Hi,
Take four, just added the rule explicitly handling the case where DPL and
team disagree on which members are latent.
I'm hoping this is the final one before we go to vote.
-
This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/
9 matches
Mail list logo
