Scripsit Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to do,
Yes... eventually. But it took a lot of asking.
--
Henning Makholm "Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:11:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What I'm proposing, instead, is that we explicitly override the social
> > contract [temporarily, within some limits, based on what we've been doing for
> > years] and just be done with it.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:10:29PM +1000,
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If a general resolution is needed, everyone else's vote counts
> > exactly the same as mine does.
>
> You are forcing everyone else's votes to be based on imperfect
> information.
welcome to the real world.
leave the guy alo
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:11:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> What I'm proposing, instead, is that we explicitly override the social
> contract [temporarily, within some limits, based on what we've been doing for
> years] and just be done with it.
this is hypocrisy.
having a principle which is s
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
> > make the decision sufficiently clear to you that you will not need to
> > have the tech-ctte decide explicitly
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:55:35PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The fact there was a precedent for this? When we first
> adopted the DFSG, we did not throw out everything all at once --
> indeed, there was a release within a few days of adoption of the
> DFSG, and that release certainl
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
> make the decision sufficiently clear to you that you will not need to
> have the tech-ctte decide explicitly.
Eh? What difference does that make?
The decision
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:37:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Wrong. I have given my own interpretation. I can restate it here if
> you missed it:
>
>In my interpretation each of the five currently proposed GRs will
>allow sarge to be released with the kind of non-free stuff in it
>
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That's not what we're asking. We're asking: What effect would the
> following language have on release timing?
It's remarkable how much talking you do and how little listening.
Anyway. Language has no effect on release tim
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [1] you want find the "logical differences" between what the GRs say and
> what you want the GRs to be understood to say, to find any problems so
> that you can address them.
No, I want to finde out whether there is a difference between how I
interpret t
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Uh, the question at hand is whether "main is free from non-DFSG-free
> things that aren't programs or licenses" needs to be true for sarge to
> release. And I've delegated that question to the tech ctte.
> No, I will not be making the aformentioned dec
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:29:14AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So "require" doesn't mean "gets excluded from the release".
debian-policy does not define RC status,
http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is canonical for that.
> My point
> is that we do not immediately exclud
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:39:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Seriously. It's not that hard. If I can do it, so can you.
> Not true. You have privileged access to insider information that
> nobody else has, and you are asking everybody else to act in *absence*
> of that insider information.
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We know what the proposers intend. Will you follow their intent?
> Does their language fail to match their intent in some way that you
> will find yourself bound to disregard their intent?
I'm required by the constitution not
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > That's not what we're asking. We're asking: What effect would the
> > > following language have on release timing?
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And I've been saying (repeatedly, over and over) that I think
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That's not what we're asking. We're asking: What effect would the
> > following language have on release timing?
> And I've been saying (repeatedly, over and over) that I think th
> > > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> > > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> > > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your
> > > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical.
Scrips
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your
> > interpretation of the previous SC did n
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a policy issue, he's stated the policy he thinks is correct given
> the recent emphasis on the social contract, and the vast majority of
> activism being based on the idea that it's time to tighten up the social
> contract, eliminating areas where
> > > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> > > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> > > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your
> > > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical.
> On T
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I have _entirely_ removed myself from any influence in this situation.
> You cannot do that while you're still release manager.
Yes, I can:
6. Technical committee
6.1. Powers
The
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:30:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:22:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Nevertheless, as things stand the decision is made; unless _something_
> > changes, sarge won't release with DFSG-free docs. At present, though,
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:42:53PM -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to
say:
> > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things th
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That's not what we're asking. We're asking: What effect would the
> following language have on release timing? Then we, the developers,
> will decide how to weigh the various considerations. But one key
> piece of informatio
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So ask the proposers what they intend. Make it clear up front. Have the
> discussion of what the appropriate policy is _now_ so that you can point
> to that after the fact. Think it through. Talk it through.
You have a very important piece of informati
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not true. All packages are expected to comply with the current
> issue of debian-policy at all times. Most of the issues in policy (ie, all
> of them except those at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt)
> aren't release critical issu
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:08:25AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > On the other hand, if it turns out after the vote that you interpret the
> > changes, as they have been accepted, in a different way than I (and
> > hopefully many others) do it, or as the
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I have _entirely_ removed myself from any influence in this situation.
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> You cannot do that while you're still release manager.
I think you're being overly literal.
This is a policy is
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> and I think
>> those intentions are quite clear, *then* I would in fact blame you for
>> not speaking up before we voted.
>
> Well, that's an idiotic response on your behalf. You've, presumably, got
> a brain. Use it. Now. Make sure that there isn't an
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:22:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Nevertheless, as things stand the decision is made; unless _something_
> changes, sarge won't release with DFSG-free docs. At present, though,
> very little is being done to follow through on that.
I beg to differ. Debian have ongoi
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have _entirely_ removed myself from any influence in this situation.
You cannot do that while you're still release manager.
The project has vested in you the authority to be the one who says
"Okay, today sarge is ready to release. From now on, stabl
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:57:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Does it matter who said it, or if it's true?
>
> Is it true?
I do think there's still a bit too much ambiguity floating around,
if that's what you're asking.
> >We resolve to release Sarge as expediently as possible based on
>
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:39:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > For the whateverth time, it's the project's interpretation of the SC
> > that's important, not mine. I don't believe it's possible to interpret
> > the current SC to allow that policy; but I might be wrong.
> I disagree.
Really? Y
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:08:25AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> On the other hand, if it turns out after the vote that you interpret the
> changes, as they have been accepted, in a different way than I (and
> hopefully many others) do it, or as the proposers intended -
So ask the proposers what th
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 03:50:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:23:54AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If you don't think it should have any effect on the release of sarge,
> > > then you should make that case to th
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:52:58AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> "I don't think the previous release policy is sound any longer" makes
> it sounds like "reverting the social contract" is not the right solution
> to this problem -- this might carry the message, but in a lame fashion.
> Is that what yo
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the project doesn't have a clear consensus that a newly reverted SC
> > should be interpreted differently to the current SC [...], then the
> > tech ctte will still need to decide the iss
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:52:58AM -0400, I wrote:
> In other words, I'm thinking this might be a better GR:
...
Actually, come to think of it, that would probably be a better
for tthe immediate situation anyways.
Does anyone have a better GR to offer, or any criticisms of the
one I just propose
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:12:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The question isn't what I think, it's what the project thinks. Before
> the GR, the project leadership -- for this issue, the DPL, the archive
> administrators, and the release manager -- were unanimous in thinking the
> previous rele
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040520 08:40]:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:06:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Why isn't it sufficient that he's stated that his interpretation of
> > the old SC allowed some packages and his interpretation of the new SC
> > does not?
> For the whateverth ti
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the project doesn't have a clear consensus that a newly reverted SC
> should be interpreted differently to the current SC [...], then the
> tech ctte will still need to decide the issue on the project's behalf,
> presumably. I certainly will not.
Uh?
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly, I'm tired of the fucking accusations being levelled at me for
> incompetence or insincerity or moral decrepitude or whatever whenever I
> participate in these discussions, so you guys are going to have to work
> out the answers for yourselves for
Canadian Gen will soon be closing.
We now have close-out prices!
Order now while we are still around!
XANAhttp://manz45a1.com/gp/default.asp?id=gm03
cogitate censorial posseman tanhvail robertson colon
liquid stumpy http://manz45a1.com/h o st/em ailr em ove. asp hazardous bungle
humidify. mor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If you don't think it should have any effect on the release of sarge,
>> then you should make that case to the technical committee.
>
> And the technical committee said that a GR should settle it, and
44 matches
Mail list logo
