Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> > therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> > constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Le
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Policy Com
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Pol
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:01:11 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
>> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the
>> Debian constitution to delay the d
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Policy Committee as defi
* John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 21:55]:
> You want to override a decision not because the decision is bad on its
> face, but because of a *guess* as to the reason for it?
>
> That makes no sense. What difference does the reason make? If it's a
> good decision, then let it stand
On 10818 March 1977, Martin Wuertele wrote:
Seconded. The whole quote below. Ie the full proposal.
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Proj
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> My reason for this proposal is the impression the revocation of the
> delegation is based on the disagreement of the interpretation of the
> policy between the chair of the Package Policy Committee and the Debian
> Project Leader.
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place until the Debian
Project Leader has
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this se
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of
>> policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know
>> that is not true
11 matches
Mail list logo
