On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:41:39AM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > How does that make sense? If the option is called "do X", and fails to
> > do X in some opaque circumstances, how is that not a bug? At the very
> > very least, it needs to be explained somewhere. Last I checked, there
> > was not
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:39:34PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> We simply don't have the resources to manage the tasks you suggest
I'm saying one shouldn't send a message to n-close@bugs.d.o and instead
just keep an existing bug open. That change alone actually conserves
resources. Sending
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/02/2018 01:14 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The Debian social contract doesn't go into that much detail, to explicitly
> > require keeping bugs open because they exist in practice -- but common sense
> >
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:59:13PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Debian did not respond.
>
> Since 1 July, new mirror reports open a wishlist bug against
> the mirrors package and someone handles it when we get time.
Unfortunately, this is a bad idea as it is now. We still tell mirror
maintainers to e
Hi,
This idea arose from a discussion on the -private mailing list.
Andreas Tille, Gustavo Franco, Manoj Srivastava and Gunnar Wolf all
commented fairly positively on a vague idea of having a social committee
(soc-ctte), different from the technical committee (tech-ctte).
I'm citing their names si
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:06:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Martin, Branden and myself have all been trying to address the original
> issue as DPL
So it's taking three mandates, three years, and it can't be done? Why not?
How can the DPL not get something done by his delegates?
What purpose
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:07:30AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Why don't I think it is a good idea? Well, because, unlike
> > technical issues, social issues are very subjective. Also, social
> > and cultural norms differ widely from culture to culture; which
> > culture shall be
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:30:41PM +0100, joy wrote:
> > It would also be helpful if there were people who are able to commit time
> > to do significant but boring tasks to help DSA, expecting neither praise,
> > acknowledgement or, most importantly, any additional rights/priveleges in
> > return.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:08:42PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > I also think that a social committee would be a good idea. Even if
> > unrefined and/or undefined, just the notion of having both a
> > technical and a social committee would indicate major progress in our
> > way of thinking.
>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:55:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But the technical issues are often not subjective; while
> social issues almost always are subjective, and very very heavily
> influenced by cultural bias.
>
> Voting implies the tyranny of the majority; and I wo
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:55:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We can determine social policy by discussion and, if necessary, by
> > voting. I'd rather see consensus, and, more specifically, see the
> > soc-ctte spell out the social norms and if the developer body
> > disagrees with it, and
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 06:34:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I'd rather see consensus, and, more specifically, see the
> >> soc-ctte spell out the social norms
>
> > The developer's reference, for example, includes several social
> > norms already - anything that isn't a strict technical
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:06:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I should also note that we have this sort of an effect already - if
> > someone wishes to impose their ideas on others, for example to
> > modify a certain package in a way that they think is right, they can
> > usually achieve i
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:07:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You see, the committee is going to define the norms. It is
> going to lay down the acceptable cultural mores. In my experience,
> committees never produce minimalist documents. The never know when
> to stop. Design by co
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 09:29:41AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I like the principle, but IMHO it should just be a DPL board or something
> similar. Otherwise I really don't see the point of the committee.
>
> A good board would integrate people from the various important offices
> (listmasters
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:15:14AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> While we are at the initial steps of discussing this idea,
> I would like to "quote" a nice blog entry (thanks to David Nusinow
> -- aka gravity -- for the link). David quoted the blog entry a
> while ago, it
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:42:23PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > See, this is part of the problem: every time, and I do mean *every*
> > time, anyone want to discuss the possibility of actually doing
> > something about the abusive communication culture in Debian, there
> > pops up people who
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:35:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> You see, the committee is going to define the norms. It is going to
> >> lay down the acceptable cultural mores. In my experience,
> >> committees never produce minimalist documents. The never know when
> >> to stop. Design by c
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:54:54AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > It's much simpler to take important decisions within a board: when you're
> > > alone as DPL, you fear taking the wrong decision and end up taking no
> > > decision. Within a board, it only needs one person motivated enough to
>
Hi all,
Andreas Tille sent me some good comments in private mail, and I answered
him, but the answers are not private per se, so here go a few more aspects:
-
The committee should have legalese in the constitution, but also an initial
charter-like document that explains all the possible pitf
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:55:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> That, in a nutshell, is my complaint against this draconian social
> engineering proposal. It would be a powerful loose cannon on deck,
> which could punish whole swathes of WASP developers, or (more likely
> IMO) could further support majo
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:07:44AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I don't see a soc-ctte as a problem, if we define how such a committee
> will act to solve some of our problems though. We need some thing like
> committee use cases, not just an vague idea.
Well, the committee could issue advisory
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:26:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Have we really forgotten what it is like to jointly work on
> something when every one is not a rah-erah cheerleader? Where we can
> have people contributing who, not being fully convinced, provide the
> loyal opposition
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:05:29PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > The problem with a an ad hoc group is the composition. We need elections
> > to get it the group be representative and to be accountable.
>
> An ad hoc group would most likely be composed of those people wanting
> to work with the
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Yes, but that would mean that it could have hundreds of members.
> > That's just not manageable.
>
> You're an optimist, I would think that there are at most a few dozen
> interested people in Debian. But yes, in theory you could h
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:31:57AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This kind of accountability implies several tacit points:
> 1) the committee has some power (whatever those powers may be),
> 3) that serving on the committee is a privilege
It might be worth noting here that I think that even
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 07:25:49PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >If given a choice to pick exactly 1 person for the most honorable
> >position - all of us will prefer the highly technically skilled person.
>
> All with exception of at least one (me): I would try to pick
> the person that promisse
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:41:30AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > After reading about various issues that arise in Debian on a social level, I
> > thought about a possible solution: a Developer BTS. This would be modeled
> > upon
> > a mixture of the packages bts and Ebay seller comments.
> For wha
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:40:30PM +0100, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> And what about having the election body enlarged to the complete (or
> voluntary) developers crowd with a permanent and _easy_ way of voting.
[...]
> Note that I do not want to replace debate by voting. I simply prefer
> to replace
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:03:13PM +0100, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> I also believe it too difficult to implement in already existing (Debian)
> constitutional bodies governed by other (working) rules. But I thought it
> might worth consideration (even for experimentation) when designing and
> setti
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:42:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > [...] It would be a powerful loose cannon on deck, [...]
> >
> > I must note that it would be no less powerful loose cannon on deck than
> > the technical committee,
>
> It maybe loose, but we know which way the technical committee is
>
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:51:28PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yes, but that would mean that it could have hundreds of members.
> > That's just not manageable.
>
> Then nor are ~1000 developers, nor the 6000+ who run a phone company
> with me, nor the 3.5million who own shops with me, nor any other l
Hi,
Here goes my first try at the exact diff at the Constitution:
--- constitution.wml2007-02-12 01:49:13.0 +0100
+++ constitution+soc-ctte.wml 2007-02-12 03:24:57.0 +0100
@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman;
+ The Social Committee and/or it
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 1) When do developers need to implement social stances or policies?
> Can you give an example of the kinds of things the constitution
> may be talking about here?
While copying and pasting :) I was actually puzzled at the
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:49:51AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > +The Social Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> > +social course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> > +this requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> OK, what happens if the Developer doesn't take t
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:38:12AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 03:32]:
>
> > + During the following month, any Developer may nominate
> > + themselves as a candidate member of the Social Committee.
> > + Every such
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:11:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The above power seems daft. soc-ctte deciding that farting loudly in
> DebConf dinner attendees' faces is a social norm would not make it so.
> This power needs omitting or rewriting to be much closer to the
> equivalent tech-ctte one, so i
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> One question related to the Concordet method: does it fullfill the
> representative criteria?
>
> AFAIUI the Concordet method allows this (please correct me if I'm
> wrong):
>
> We have two groups of people, A and B. A has 20 people
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:22:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > In your suggestion the first three people to be elected would be a1,
> > a2 and a3, as they all beat all B candidates. In a representative
> > election a1, a2 and b1 should be elected, instead.
>
> Er, I do
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:44:40PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> >>and I would think that social problems / discussions should be considered
> >>even more private.
> >
> >I disagree - if a problem is severe enough to get brought before soc-ctte,
> >it's out in the open already, and needs to be dealt wi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:08:09PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > + If there are fewer than S2 candidates
> > + at the end of the nomination period, then the nomination period is
> > + extended for two further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
> [..]
> > + If "None Of The Above" wins the electi
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:14:40AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > >> + The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> > >> + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee
> > >>elections
> > >> + are made public after the election is finished.
> > > And why shall vo
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > > > + The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> > > > + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee elections
> > > > + are made public after the election is finished.
> > > And why shall votes
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:25:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> No matter what's my opinion on whether fresh blood is good or bad for
> the social ctte, I doubt it would make any difference to state a rule
> like that. The committee will be elected and I seriously doubt any
> "fresh blood" DD
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:17:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Having a record of who voted for whom is a good default. Since we don't
> > have any typical real-world election abuses in Debian (e.g. intimidation
> > or harming of people who voted for someone you don't like), I see no
> > seri
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:14:27PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > You are aware that most of our elections are done this way,
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> > we only use hashes in the tally sheet for leader elections?
>
> Or in other words: I 100% of the votes regarding persons, we have a
> secret
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:39:12PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > > + If there are fewer than S2 candidates
> > > > + at the end of the nomination period, then the nomination period is
> > > > + extended for two further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
> > > > + If "None Of The Above" wins t
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:59:06PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > > Do you think it's likely for it to go on for more than one repetition?
> > > I've no real idea but it might lead to a dead end. And having
> > > infinite nominations/elections because there are e.g. "only" 10 and
> > > not 16
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:00:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Composition:
>
> * Around 10 members representing if possible the various tendencies that
> exist within Debian.
One thing that needs to be clarified is the explanation of this number of
members. There are several ki
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 08:34:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Now, conventional wisdom says that optimal teams (that's teams rather than
> > just groups) are composed of 5 or 7 people.
>
> I don't think we'll have any problem as there's no real limiting factor.
> When you handle very simple
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:32:40AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > * have a 3- or 5-member leadership team, selected by the top-leader
> > but composed from the rest of the winning vote tally, where by "winning"
> > I mean those top 3 or top 5 who win over NOTA
> > * this selection must be base
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:25:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately "forgetting"? It has
> > > been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
> > > hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do
> > > not m
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:13:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think they contribute /better/ if they aren't closely supervised.
> I think that's seen some results over the past year, including much
> improved spam protection for debian.org addresses,
Er, we now have implemented measures that
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:03:59PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> See this list some time ago. Debian have a Sun T2000 available.
Oh yeah, I noticed, but it also sounds like we're not really using it.
That needs to be fixed. Besides, redundancy is good, esp. given that
vore is down.
--
2. Th
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:39:11PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though
> only after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a
> plain self-nomination. What do others think?
You don't want Q, Q is too much, it's 15
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:30:53AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though
> > only
> > after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a plain
> > self-nomination. What do others think?
>
> What would be bett
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 01:09:12AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> So, basically my question remains: why does it have to be so incredibly
> difficult to allow new members into these teams?
Probably because fixing them requires spending a sufficient number of
man-hours and a substantial amount of will
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:53:52AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >IMO setting up an RT system will not fundamentally solve any of this, but
> >will at most make it more manageable. The only way to solve this is by
> >having new blood in the teams, people who will take on the most boring
> >and
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 02:08:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive
> upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's
> contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006:
>
> * creation of cdrkit, a fork of
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:08:44AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> We're telling people that they can/should use Debian, and 5 minutes later
> I have to explain [...]
I sense a bit of frustration in here :) but it's not really necessary.
I mean, you also have to explain people why we e.g. don't
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:02:50PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I'm not sure money is the issue - it appears to be DSA set-up time.
> New hardware has been offered, many months ago, and is there, ready,
> online, but (so far as I can tell) it has not been brought into use by
> the people with the power t
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:06:30PM +0200, Torsten Trautwein wrote:
> to ask if it was possible to change the naming resource from Toy Story
> to The Simpsons?
Frankly, I think that both are fairly corny. If we are to change, we should
make a more meaningful change.
--
2. That which causes j
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> NB that such a committee does not need to be consititutionally
> established. The DPL's existing powers are sufficient to establish
> it. A big advantage to not establishing the committee
> constitutionally is that we don't need to wo
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Another thought. Sam's written about having more people in our core teams
> a few times, and no doubt will have more to say in the future; but a
> single person can only focus on helping one or two teams at any one time,
> and there's
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:12:12PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > * any candidate has to pledge a minimum 18 months availability to the team -
> > to avoid people nominating just for kicks, giving up after a few months,
> > and essentially wasting team effort spent for training them
>
> I
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:05:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't quite get the idea of having a delegation where delegates are
> > voted upon. Imagine a conflict situation later - the leader can veto
> > their decisions, change charter, or even undelegate the whole thing.
>
> Yes. But in
Hi,
In a recent discussion on the -sparc list, it turned out that we seem to
have something of a habit of getting hardware offers, but not knowing
exactly what to do with them :)
The matter of shipping hardware and the associated cost always comes up.
I don't think we've footed the bill for shipp
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Having a record of who voted for whom is a good default. Since we don't
> > > have any typical real-world election abuses in Debian (e.g. intimidation
> > > or harming of people who voted for s
Hi,
I went back and examined the thread that started with
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in February, and
came up with the following diff at the Constitution.
The changes from the last version include:
* replaced the somewhat confusing 'day-to-day' reference
* added section 'Intervene in communi
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Josip models the SC's powers on those of the TC. This is wholly
>inappropriate because the questions that the SC is required to deal
>with are very different.
I guess it doesn't make sense to argue much about this, but I ha
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:07:54PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues
> via mail. I just hope that many people will join
>
> https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html
>
> which I registered for an open discussion about this
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:42:52PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues
> > via mail. I just hope that many people will join
> >
> > https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:15:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > * Someone proposed that the leader makes the initial list of members which
> > would then be voted upon, not sure; I would maintain my position that
> > people should be nominating themselves, rather than the leader naming
> >
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > * The communication of soc-ctte members with people about their
> > behaviour which might eventually become a matter of committee
> > deliberation should be kept reasonably private, to prevent
> > unnecessary escalat
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:44:28AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> even if I'm not perfectly decided whether it might be just practical
> because I doubt that there will be enough cronies in the group of
> volunteers.
Like with the cabal - it's not a matter of if they will be there, but
a matter of
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:48:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I feel we're really missing most sorely list-admin teams who will take
> care of the social fabric of one list each and are empowered to make
> limited short-term changes to preserve it, including updating the list
> info pages and small pos
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:03:56PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Rationale
> -
>
> There wasn't a huge amount of discussion about this; mostly people
> seemed to acquiesce to the way I put it, which is that we need some
> method for dealing with disruptive behaviour that lies between
> indiv
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:32:15AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Straight elections were not considered to be a good appointment
> > strategy, at least for any subsequent years, because most of the work
> > done by the committee is in private.
>
> This is also something th
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:22:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > One thing that I hadn't had the chance to mention (because other people were
> > simply being louder than me ;) was that the "proactivity" still needs to be
> > documented in an internal archive of soc-ctte, so that there is a clear
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election
> > suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't
> > it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)? Not a big
>
> It's targeted t
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 08:29, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Technically the wiki is operated by debian-admin. For serious
> > problems, please drop debian-admin a note. Patches in coordination
> > with the python moin wiki maintainer are
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> This appears to have gone unfixed ever since wiki.d.o was first created,
> in October 2005 - almost two years now.
Hm, here are the user complaints about this:
http://bugs.debian.org/352115
"no feedback path
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 08:13:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Thanks, but who is coordinating the wiki as a whole? Someone should
> > > take responsibility for dealing with questions/issues with the wiki in
> > > general, not only its technical side.
> >
> > I just stumbled upon this issu
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:41:52AM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> >> I do not believe the query on your URL should upset the process; [...]
> >
> > Why don't you believe it? The regexp it must match is
> > /^([\w.:\/~-]+)$/ - in other words, a string containing only one or
> > more word characters (al
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Technically the wiki is operated by debian-admin. For serious
> > > problems, please drop debian-admin a note. Patches in coordination
> > > with the python moin wiki maintainer are wel
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:43:56AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> * We seemed to agree that a leader's delegation would be a useful tool to
> bootstrap the soc-ctte and modify it later
Well, that was so in June, but apparently everybody including the leader
forgot about this in the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:27:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CHARTER OF THE SOCIAL COMMITTEE
Going back to this old thing... :) The bulk of the charter can be
promulgated by the developers through a GR, rather than just the leader,
so I'm looking at it from that aspect (and from the general asp
Hi,
I pondered a bit about that old subthread about infrastructure teams the
other day... what follows is what I was intending to post to debian-vote.
But I'll post it to debian-project first, hoping that people improve it
before we get to the stage where everyone posts GPG-signed messages :)
---
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:31:30AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams are groups of developers who deal with project
> > infrastructure and have access to resources in ways other than
> > the standard practice of uploading Debian packages.
>
> Which teams do you currently
[will check the wiki page, but I deleted the quote by mistake :)]
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:13:38AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams have to decide to mark old members who don't
> > sufficiently contribute to the team effort as latent.
> > * Latent team members count fo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:34:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Once we have resolved something as he propose the DPL will be empowered
> to solve the problem with any team in the present and in the future.
Sorry, but that won't work. The Constitution already empowers the DPL to do
things th
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:13:38AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Good initiative. You might take some inspiration in the "Team guidelines"
> that I drafted earlier this year:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Guidelines
Okay, my proposal was aimed primarily at the process of composition, these
guid
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:29:08PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Which teams do you currently have in mind? That applies to DSA,
> > > obviously, ftp-master, but also well-functionning teams such as the
> > > release team?
> > > But it could also apply to every team that has a unix group, even
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > I think teams should be free to coopt new members at any time as usual,
> > > but additionally there would be those nominations rounds so that
> > > candidates have an occasion to get a decision and a rationale (at least
> > > t
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:53:26PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Well, let's put it this way - do you think that the hordes of people anxious
> > to see changes in the design of the web site think that we should keep the
> > webwml group as it is? :)
>
> Do you think that the reason why the web
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:00:08PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Sorry, but that won't work. The Constitution already empowers the DPL to do
> > things that nobody else is explicitly in charge of, yet none
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 05:45:49AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Lucas writes about "that broken" team, you write about teams which "had
> breakages" and "had fairly major issues". If there are really 8 teams
> which were at one point "that broken", I suppose your proposition is
> interestin
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:32:31AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> manpower can
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
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 team
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
