-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-10-2007 11:22, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
>> If, for instance, we need to change people and we
>> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or
>> to
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> If, for instance, we need to change people and we
> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or
> to interfere and ask for the change, then I think we need
> a better approach.
How exactly can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-10-2007 06:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>>> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else
>>> deciding i
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else
>> deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own membership would
>> go against all recorded history (A
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something
> > else deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own
> > membership would go against
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else
> deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own membership would
> go against all recorded history (AFAIR), so one could question whether that
> k
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:50:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think I've spotted another problem with the "second edit" - does it
> fail if all members of a team become idle simultaneously? Should
> there be a default of accepting a new member if the team doesn't
> decide?
I guess we should make th
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >> * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
> >> nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
> >
> > Why should teams decide
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
>> nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
>
> Why should teams decide on their own membership? I don't think this
> should be a
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:01:56AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
> > nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
>
> Why should teams decide on their own
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
> nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
Why should teams decide on their own membership? I don't think this
should be allowed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Proposed general resolution - Project infrastructure team procedures
I like this reworked version. It's definitely better than the first one.
I have nothing particular to add.
> * Infrastructure teams should ensure that they don't have too many members.
>
Hi,
Take two.
-
This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html
Proposed general resolution - Project infrastructure team procedures
Debian develop
13 matches
Mail list logo
