On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 06:46:16PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gunnar Wolf writes:
> > ... And yes, maybe Debian is less attractive in general ...
> One side effect of this is that packaging feels like a solved problem.
If so (and assuming that's all Debian's about), then that'd be a good
reason
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:02:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > - there are "archive networks" for most programming languages these days:
> >CPAN, CRAN, Hackage, PyPI, RubyGems, NPM, CCAN, etc. Installing
&
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:51:32AM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:57:55AM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It takes a couple of minutes to download something using pip or
> > npm; how long does it take to get a python or nodejs Debianized and
>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:29:19AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Anthony Towns dijo [Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:57:55AM +]:
> > (Yes, I really think Debian should have 300k+ packages, including
> > everything in all the language archives, no matter how special purposes
> >
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:03:08AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > CRAN has about 6k (~250 in Debian),
> Just to piggyback here, debian-r.debian.net has about 8.6k of these
> packages (bioc, cran, and omegahat).
Talk about giving 110%! [
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:15:22PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> One huge advantage of teaching our package management tools to
> understand alternate package technologies and convert on the fly is that
> we can use the mirror networks of the language-specific packages.
> Unfortunately, we're fairly
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:41:18PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:07:08AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > My own view on the original question ("What are you expected the DPL to
> > do?") is that the main thing the DPL must absolutely do is being a good
> > "garbage
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:47:05AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> People seem to feel they're unreasonably put-upon by having to think about
> what they're saying *at all*, but this is absurd. Everyone else in the
> world is doing this all the time.
There are times when you don't have to think abou
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action,
I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment.
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership suspend
Hello world,
Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
membership?
The current tech ctte members were appointed:
Ian: May/Dec 1998 (15 years, 5 months) [0]
Bdale: Apr 2001 (13 years, 1 month) [1]
Andreas: Jan 2006 (8 years, 4 months) [2]
Steve: Jan 2006 (8 yea
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:40:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech
> > ctte membership?
> I just mentioned this today in our TC meeting, so obviously I've been
> thinking along th
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I believe a maximum of 5 years in a
> row with a minimum 1-year suspension before being able to join again
> would work well for our tech-ctte.
I think 5 years w
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - continuity is valuable in a body like the tech-ctte, where there
> aren't that many decisions on a yearly basis (and hence, for instance,
> it takes time to get new members up to speed).
You could get continuity by having
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:37:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Yeah; I don't think that's a bad rule in general, but I'm not convinced
> > it's a great fit for the tech-ctte. The thought experiment that makes me
> > doubt it is "if a compulsory x year break after n years of service makes
> > sen
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:02:17AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> The Australian senate (our federal parliament) has 8 year terms. In
(6 year terms; same as the US senate as it happens. We have 3 years
terms the house of reps and hence prime minister as compared to 2 year
terms for the US hous of
tte/2002/10/msg7.html
Anthony Towns ~ 3y
2006-01-05 - 2009-01-06
(1.186 - 1.312)
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/01/msg6.html
Klee Dienes ~ 2.5y
1998-12-14 - 2001-06-01
(* - 1.42)
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/05/msg00010.html
I've put the CVS r
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:37:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> If we want the opportunity to appoint new members regularly, rather
> >>> than expire old members per se, we could just say that: "on July 1st,
> >>> the two longest serving ctte members' term expires" to end up with (on
> >>> aver
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:02:25AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Russ Allbery:
> > I had picked four-year terms because I think adding one member every six
> > months (or two members every year) is probably near the upper limit of
> > membership management that the TC can deal with and still get
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 07:58:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm still skeptical that something built around people typically serving
> for eight years is the sort of turnover we want, but it's the conservative
> approach and doesn't change too much at once. Which has some definite
> merits.
I
On 30 May 2014 19:37, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I might have another go at seeing if I can word it for rolling twelve
> months, to see if that's workable.
Okay, so I gave it a go, and came up with:
- A Technical Committee member's term will end upon resignation, removal
On 26 June 2014 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>- Term limit: Every 1st of November, the most senior member of the
> Technical Committee's is immediately and automatically removed
> from the Com
On 29 June 2014 19:14, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 26 June 2014 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>>- Term limit: Every 1st of November, the most senior member of the
>> Technical Committee
Ed White wrote:
So I think a possible correct version could be:
"Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system
is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run.
Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of
the
Ian Murdock wrote:
What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is in
the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
participating organizations.
Which is to say, no one outside the partipating organisations is in the
loop?
Isn't this a good opportunity for e
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:37:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> > Hrm. leader@ cc'ed.
> It's unclear to me exactly what sort of reponse you're soliciting, but I
> did my best.
I don't think the "Debian Core Consortium" is clearly in Debian's
interests, and I think some
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:41AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> This latest round was provoked by the DCC announcement. I participated
> in the DCCA meeting yesterday evening. The organization has agreed to
> call themselves the Debian Common Core Association in order to make it
> more clear that t
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:07:07PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:38:38PM +0200, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > So a naming in the sense of "Debian Commercial Support Association"
> > or something along those lines would seem to make it clearer to me
> ... or just sti
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:17:18PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Even if you missed it on some of the news sites, let me tell you:
> DCC will not be a fork.
Uh, yes it will. You're going to need to have your own packages to
implement LSB 3.0 compliance, and they're not going to end up tracking
e
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:18:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I plan on working with both the leadership of the DCCA, the SPI
> trademark group, and Debian Developers to resolve this issue as
> amicably as possible, as rapidly as possible.
So, is this going to happen entirely behind the scenes,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:17:28PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> [...] There's no need to hammer on the trust issues in public;
I tend to think "in public" is the best place to hammer on trust issues;
otherwise how to tell the difference between a convincing argument,
or the appropriate peopl
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:28:11AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> But beyond that, yes, when there's something to report, I plan on
> making either -private or -project as appropriate aware of what is
> being done, just like any other delegate.
Well, most other delegates tend to get distracted and
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:03:38AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To that end, we've set up a society:
> > http://wiki.earth.li/DebianUKSociety
> > the primary purpose of which is to allow us to open a bank account to hold
> > the mentioned funds.
> That disagr
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I haven't seen any such proposals (beyond "add LSB compliance" and
> > "new X"); I wouldn't really expect to either -- far easier and better
> > to just make the improvements, license them freely, and put them out
> > for use and c
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:16:02PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 23. August 2005 06:13 schrieb Anthony Towns:
> > Uh, yes it will. You're going to need to have your own packages to
> > implement LSB 3.0 compliance, and they're not going to end up track
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:18:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> > I don't think the "Debian Core Consortium" is clearly in Debian's
> > interests, and I think someone should be looking into it with Debian's
> > interests at heart.
> Just out of curiosity, what interests
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:01:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Well, there's a BIG similarity:
> > > * both took the debian name for business use without consent;
> > You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has
> > anything at
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:34:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't know how real those concerns are, but I know I've heard them.
Man, I love open source FUD.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:43:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, a formal announcement of the BSP is pending; and the rule on BSPs
> is that the organizer gets to pick where it happens, so it's not too
> late to move that to OFTC if it's agreed that's a better option.
Shall we switch to use
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:18:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Branden Robinson (Debian Project Leader) has delegated to me the
> authority to make a decision regarding the use of the Debian trademark
> by the (as currently named) Debian Core Consortium Alliance.
>
> I plan on working with both
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:27:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, it's been three weeks, without any word that I've seen.
Now it's been four weeks since the delegation, a month since I suggested
Branden delegate this, and just under two months since Florian Weimer
brought t
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 02:04:33PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > My understanding is it's necessary to rigorously enforce your
> > trademark to ensure it doesn't lapse. This doesn't seem to be what's
> > happening here.
> The few dozen e-mails that I have sent between myself and the
> representat
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 04:50:31AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> They announced that the DCC Alliance will support LSB 3.0. However,
> every press item I saw on this matter reported that _Debian_ supports
> LSB 3.0 (which isn't officially announced yet, as far as I know).
Note that the reason it's
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bart Schuller writes ("Re: DCC (Debian Confusion Core) trademark negotiation
> status"):
> > http://ianmurdock.com/?p=274
> This is some kind of insulting joke.
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.
> Look at the www.dccallianc
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:01:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is some kind of insulting joke.
There's been two articles on newsforge about this now, both by David
Graham, who's the non-Debian guy on the SPI board (AIUI); the first,
summarising mails on this list:
http://trends.newsforge.com
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:41PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Florian Weimer]
> > Do Debian or SPI participate in the GPL v3 process?
> That's a question for debian-legal. Well, really it's a question for
> the FSF. My impression is that there is no "GPL v3 process" except
> whatever is don
Bcc'ed to -project; followups to -devel.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:43:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Note that the point is to be able to test the _actual package_, _as
> installed_ (eg on a testbed system). This is much better than testing
> the package from the source treeu during build time
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:23:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (Note: sorry about my earlier header mixup. This thread is on the
> wrong list so I'm crossposting this reply to -project and -policy and
> have set Reply-To to point to -policy. I will also quote more of
> Stefano's message than woul
the context of having people use the unembargoed
infrastructure to work on updates to stable, and assist the security team in
that way.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:21:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>TBH, I think adding people immediately is the better strategy
Well, I disagree. Our fun
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:32:46PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 04:33 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > and the kernel team not getting back to Joey about security updates
> > for two months.
> what? when was this?
Sorry, that was poorly phrased; I was re
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:55:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It's not a pressing issue for the security team and there are
> > more important items currently.
> Does anybody know what they are, apart from bugs in certain packages
> without upstream security support?
The above
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:35:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
> > important as size or accuracy of emulation.
> Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functionin
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:54:36AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Problem with a GR: it doesn't get any work done.
Right; that's not the intention of the GR though -- the intention is
to authorise people to do the work. I've done all I feel I'm within my
rights to (and in fact slightly more tha
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:23:32AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Word from the DPL or SecTeam members would be welcome here - do they operate
> under the assumption that the security team are delegates?
For those who think it's worth delving into this topic, there's a message
on -private from
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:11:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] In the very same post Joey correctly added:
> > It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...]
> 167% is a rather big margin, isn't it?
Depends what it's a percentage of; if it were a perce
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
that, and as par
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:59:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:54:36AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > Problem with a GR: it doesn't get any work done.
> > Scenario I:
> > * some people see something needs doing
> > * 200+ thread o
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:55:12AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> There have also been ongoing discussions about optimizing
> apt-ftparchive, but I am not sure whether this is part of the solution
> as well. Maybe aj can comment on that.
apt-ftparchive is causing a bit too much load for any signif
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:00:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > "Firmware" are programs. They are binary executables designed to run on a
> > CPU.
> > Source code is clearly mandatory under the DFSG for programs.
> > There is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
(-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide"
stuff; dunno if this fits that)
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debia
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Personally, I'd suggest:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
> Joey Hess and others in this thread hav
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and
> > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on
> > otherwise-unmodified
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> non-free as far as I can remember.
That's why we have web archives:
Dropping Option
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:37:25PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > In reality, Debian used to allow "non-free non-programs" in Debian -- but
> > it
> > did so while issuing a Social Contract which said that Debian didn't allow
>
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:59:37PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> James: [...] I
> grieve at the harm you have done Debian in the evident
> blindness of your pride. Your formidable enmity I may
> earn today. If so, this in itself is a regrettable and
> serious matter, but so be it. Now please
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:13:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Err, who said anything about mutt? I have never used that
> program, since when I tested it out I found it kinda under powered,
> and lacked extensibility.
Sir, your insult cannot go unremarked! I demand satisfaction and
Hey all,
Having downloaded the tally sheet [0], and verified by magic token that
at least my vote seems to have been counted correctly, and gotten the
same results the project secretary got both using the official vote
counting method and a couple of others [1], it looks like I better be
writing a
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 05:02:11PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Google is planning to organize a Summer of Code program this summer as
> well[1]. They are now accepting application from mentoring
> organisations, and I believe (as well as others who voiced this idea
> elsewhere) Debian shou
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:18:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I wanted to suggest to make more general use of the term suite.
> However, while writing this I (re)discover that there is a difference
> between "suite" and "suit" [1]. Until now I'd linked the term "suite" as
> used in Debian with "su
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:00:56AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I have to confess that I'm hardly balancing between both. Filipus
> developed an interesting and well argumented explanation to push
> "branch" and I find it convincing...at least as convincing as
> "pro-suite" arguments.
Suite i
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 09:54:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Policy 2.2 calls them "sections" or "categories" (depending on whether
> you go with the headline or the main text).
Historically, policy's called "main/contrib/non-free" sections, and
"base/admin/mail/etc" subsections; which is c
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday 13 May 2006 16:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Paul Johnson 2006-05-14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Why does it necessarily have to be IRC? Jabber fixes a lot of IRC's
> > > shortcomings, without bringing along all the poli
Frans and Colin dropped from Cc's, -boot and -powerpc Bcc'ed only;
please avoid crossposting.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:14:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:38:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As I suspect you're all already aware, on 27th
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:40:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Altough you are wrong, aj didn't really give a official position,
To be clear: I gave my position, as DPL. That isn't the final position
of the project, since it can also be appealed to the technical committee
(which it subsequently h
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:26:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The d-i team were acting under the belief that you no longer wished to
> > work on d-i after a number of conflicts in the past [0]; they then sought
> This may be true, but you have still not commented about the special
> circunstance
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:27:04AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Quite. I saw AJ's words as being complementary, not derogatory.
> Well, normal people think it's derogatory to write that
> normal people do one thing, but you did something else(!)
> If AJ meant it as pu
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:47:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Personally, I don't think this issue is enough to revoke ftp-master's
> right to choose their staff among themselves, but rather push more
> people onto their team without their consent.
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any v
nds marked for use only with
approval of DPL or authorised delegate -- for details contact Steve
McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any of these are fine, and will see your donation used to improve Debian.
Thankyou very much for your contribution and support. :)
Cheers,
aj
--
Antho
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Anthony, ...
> I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need for
> NEW for the creation of some new binary package [...]
Sven, you bring this up every chance you get, please stop it. You're not
interested in
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:15:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Maybe, or maybe not, but you cannot deny that the actual NEW situation is
> satisfactory.
Heh.
> And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which
> made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points
> > > which
> > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request
> > > for
> > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subjec
m ?
Sven, vitality doesn't mean "Sven gets what he wants, the way he wants
it", it means things happen. It doesn't even mean "things happen in the
areas I care about" -- whether the I is Sven Luther, Anthony Towns, or
anyone else. Vitality includes things like gett
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 06:05:06PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:47:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > How much longer do you want to continue this idiotic one-up-manship
> > before you're willing to try a different approach of working with people?
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:46:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ===
> 5. Project Leader
>5.1. Powers
> The Project Leader may:
> + 10. In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting
> + prope
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the
> private vetting process, since there may be no external communication
> before the announcement.
Why wouldn't we just have a public vetting process that takes two
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:27:29AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:03PM -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Was his access suspended because he simply was not liked?
> AFAICS, from the installer team's point of view, he resigned from the
> team, and the access was suspended as
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 02:01:47PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Frankly, as someone who is looking into setting up a support team for
> some debian packages, I am appalled at the notion that the DPL can
> dictate who can and can't be a member of my team.
Ugh; that's not what's happening here at al
s.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns, Debian Project Leader
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:31:56PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Neither AJ, nor the Tech Ctte., nor even the whole project through a
> GR has the power to make Sven a member of the d-i team unless the d-i
> team is willing to have Sven as a member.
A small clarification that doesn't really have mu
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:03:19PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Why didn't Ubuntu also make loud noises about how Linus or RMS are
> > contributors to Ubuntu? There's a lot more of their work in there than a
> > lot of Debian developers. I'm sure RMS would love to be associated with
> > Ubunt
omething that will be
completed in a couple of hours -- what I'm hoping is that we'll be able
to come up with a range of aspects of DebConf that people appreciate;
and a range of problems people have had with past DebConfs, and that we
will be able to poll past attendees to determine whi
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 08:12:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> In order to bring the constitution in line with current needs
> and practices of handling assets globally, and allowing the projet to
> add and remove partner organizations from the set of organizations
> currently autho
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:16:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'd like to ask that we keep the discussion period for this open
> > until the SPI elections are completed and the new board has an
> > opportunity to comment.
> While I have no interest in rushing this proposal to a vot
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:04:47AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have never seen SPI explicitly solicit official Debian
> project input [...]
FWIW, I started receiving all the internal correspondence between board
members when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address was changed to point to me,
[switched to -project]
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 05:37:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neither Ubuntu nor Debian do anything special to get hardware support
> > that is provided by the kernel proper and tools that neither group
> > created.
> That's
Hi all,
So, following the discussions at DebConf [0], the "Debian Powered" logo
ideas [1], and a couple of other chats I've had the privelege of having
with some folks working on Debian derivatives and Debian-based distros and
similar things, I'd like us to introduce an official branding programme
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:59:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The other question is what logo we should use that sums up our ideas
> about derivatives, and is pretty and that people want to use. I'd *love*
> to hear ideas for that; I'll also followup with a sketch of a
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:48:40AM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-29 16:59]:
> > That would require us to maintain an essentially permanent archive
> > for source packages, which at the moment we don't. But doing so
> >
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:36:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:39:02 +0200, Lo?c Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I think it would be a great idea if it were applied to
> > cross-package integration in general, not to specific task in
> > particular. [...]
>
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:51:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > I would definitely like to see some standardisation -- like changing
> > from quilt/dpatch to dpkg-source-v2 based patches, or having a standard
> > README of some sort to explain how
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:06:51AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > (a) they'll listen to their users and do their best to incorporate
> > that input in future releases
> > (b) they'll cooperate with the free software community, both
> > in making every effor
1 - 100 of 374 matches
Mail list logo
