Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
> answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
> changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.
OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any a
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> There are three ways policy can be changed:
> a) The Technical ctte can do so
> b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
> majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can mak
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > There are three ways policy can be changed: [...]
> > c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy.
>
> If c) implies that the DPL can delegate the power to chan
Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> There are three ways policy can be changed:
> a) The Technical ctte can do so
> b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition
> of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee
> delegation"):
>> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>> a) The Technical ctte c
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.
Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the
constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like
to ask you to do us a favour and p
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
> > policy package
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
> you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
> I don't think you've
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the
> DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
Hi,
After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
"Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider
that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
institution so nea
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
> > you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> > with
Hi!
Thanks a lot for this mail. It clearly explains what I and others feel
about the Dunc-Tanc "experiment". I haven't signed it, but please
consider this mail as a signature.
Bye,
Aurelien Jarno, Debian Developer
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After a
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
> "Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider
> that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
> time
This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion
only.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Especially since it is clear now that we
> currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying
> our RMs.
Is that clear?
> - During
Thanks for the mail-in-depth
On 10/26/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
Joey Schulze: [5] Debian is a failure
This is misrepresentation don't you think? Joey didn't say that Debian
is a failure. That's just the title of the blog.
[5] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?2
On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If people need to be paid, I'd like them
(1) to be paid by the project
(2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
(3) to be paid by a competitor
I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And
unfortunately,
Joerg Jaspert debian.org> writes:
> With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT
> project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we
> still consider unanswered and open:
I don't mind you carrying on this discussion, but please keep it out
of debian-d
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If people need to be paid, I'd like them
> > (1) to be paid by the project
> > (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
> > (3) to be paid by a competitor
> >
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
> living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
> was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
> living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the aver
[Joerg Jaspert pisze na temat "Position Statement to the
Dunc-Tanc "experiment""]:
Dear authors of the <> (whoever position it states),
Please stop abusing the debian-devel-announce, this is not acceptable.
If you just cannot stand the fact that the majority of the developers that
happen to be
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion
> only.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Especially since it is clear now that we
> > currently can not keep the scheduled re
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:45:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Thus at $6000 and assuming my calculation is correct, this is 60% more
> than the average salary in the US hence not "below average" or just
> "living costs". Speaking naively (since the average doesn't follow the
> standard distribution
* Marc Haber:
> Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in
> month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to
> calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this
> list are not aware of these differences.
You make this sound as if
Joerg, et. al. wrote:
> We consider...
[Editorial comment]
"We" isn't qualified in either the Subject or the beginning of the
post. You need to go to the end of the lengthy message to see that
the "Position Statement" is from a collection of Developers, rather
than Debian as a whole. "Un-offic
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:12:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marc Haber:
> > Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in
> > month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to
> > calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on thi
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [lengthy whinge snipped]
Funny. Looks to me like some valid unanswered questions were snipped,
some of which were asked right back near when this effort was first
mentioned.
> I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with "position statement
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
> time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
> institution so near to the project itself.
This is completely and blatantly false! The only th
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If people need to be paid, I'd like them
> > (1) to be paid by the project
> > (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
> > (3) to be paid by a competitor
> >
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Just let me pick the NEW queue: Has it been stated publicly that
> ftpmaster is going to reduce work spent on NEW due to dunc tank? Have
> ftpmaster considered to accept offers to take over some of the work
> load they are not motivated
29 matches
Mail list logo
