Hi Mehdi,
First of all, congrats for the election!
On 17/05/16 18:57, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Assets
> ==
> - Approved expenses for MiniDebConf at Vienna, Austria. (Up to 3000€)
Out of curiosity, what was this used/intended for? I couldn't find a mail on
debian-sprints explaining the request,
On 20/05/16 20:55, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> On 20/05/2016 20:11, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Hi Mehdi,
>>
>> First of all, congrats for the election!
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>> On 17/05/16 18:57, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>>> Ass
On 17/03/11 08:52, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> I saw you included most points raised but nothing about XZ support (even
>> though it's a relatively small item in term of work compared to the rest).
>> I had raised it here:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00072.html
>
>> Did you miss
On 08/08/14 00:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2014, Jordi Mallach wrote:
>> Well, it's roughly that time. :) So I'd like to plainly request GNOME
>> is reinstated as the default desktop environment for a number of
>> reasons.
>
> One of the reasons put forward for switching to Xfce was s
Henrik Frid wrote:
> Hi! Although the forum is down, is it possible to access the
> forum threads? There is lots of valuable info on the forum. it
> would be great if the threads could be uploaded somewhere,
> perhaps on a already working p2p network like the pirate bay.
There is Google, searching
Don Armstrong escribió:
> I think adding the lists.debian.org and bugs.debian.org ruleset[1] to
> packages.debian.org (possibly with some tweaks) will help resolve the
> issue with spam flowing through packages.debian.org.
Yes, please. We're drowning on spam!
Thanks,
Emilio
signature.asc
Descr
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
>> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>>
>> What would we be missing that way?
>
> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
>>> It's DAM. DAM has always
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
>>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
>>> this mail to congratulate them?)
>> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.
>
> The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
> automated, so it take
Hi all,
This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
- Applicant applies
- DD advocates
(wait1)
- AM assigned
- Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
- AM sends report
(wait2)
- FD checks the application
(wait3)
- DAM reviews the application
(wait4)
- DA
Richard Hecker wrote:
> While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is
> good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you
> have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are
> you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic?
No, what is bureaucratic is hav
Richard Hecker wrote:
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one
>> application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM.
>> Then wait
>> another month. I don't see the point in
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one
>> application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then
>> wait
>>
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> + Security fixes prepared for Ubuntu will be (sometimes ?) applicable
> directly to Debian, which would be a reduction in workload for the
> Debian Security team. (Or phrased differently: Debian and Ubuntu
> security teams will be able to prepare
Martín Ferrari wrote:
> You're not talking about sexism, objetification or anything but things
> that are common to almost everybody in this planet.
So what?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ana Guerrero wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Agnieszka Czajkowska has presented this morning at DebConf a very nice
> redesign proposal off the Debian logo and the Debian website. She has been
> working on this all the last year as part of her master thesis in Design.
>
> You can take a look at her presenta
Klistvud wrote:
> In my view, Debian is far less about image and
> far more about substance than any competing "product" (or any "product"
> in general, for that matter).
Not that I don't agree with that, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about
our image at all. We can improve the distributi
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.
>
> However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> of a moderator). The case I am p
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Ev. some queue priority and allowing to suspend queues will be useful
> (but I think these are already implemented): we don't want a openoffice
> backport during a transition.
Marc said the builds would happen on non Debian buildds, so this shouldn't be a
problem AFAI
Hi,
On 08/05/2024 08:53, Тимур Казбеков wrote:
Hi!
We noticed that you have discrepancies in the mailing list and the
information provided on https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/
Example:
DSA-5248-1 link to the message
https://www.debian.org/security/2022/dsa-5248?ref=cve.news redirect t
21 matches
Mail list logo
