On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:46:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
>> > when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
>> > changed? I didn't find
[...] (Sorry for only focusing on the below point, it was a really nice, but at
the same time also scary read!)
>
> One bright spot is that I think there are fewer poisonous people in
> positions of authority in Debian now than in many points in its
> history. We have a great leadership team, in
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:09:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> For what it is worth, at work we had to install Lenny on
> machines which have the broadcom netextreme 2 ethernet cards (bnx2
> firmware needed). The netinst installer worked wonderfully, grabbing
> the firmware from a u
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:18:04AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> That is when Ian pointed out to me how true that was in the Linux
> community. I wonder if Debian is exemplifying this behavior. A lot of
> good people have retired lately.
>
> It is starting to feel like that block of home
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:46:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
> > when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
> > changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
> >
On Thu, Dec 18 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No other body for enforcement of the DFSG is defined in the
> constitution. It's up to individual developers to determine for
> themselves whether their actions are in keeping with the DFSG/SC, and
> with the promise they made when they became DDs to
On Thu, Dec 18 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I'd like to briefly suggest a different perspective on the issues at hand.
> Rather than looking at whether this will delay lenny or not, it might be
> more useful to just take a step back and work out what our principles are.
> FWIW, I
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> > >
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> > not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
> > its
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 06:07:43PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > Rank "Further discussion" first. That's our best way to say "I think
> > this vote is wrong".
> But that will delay even further Lenny release; I think that a simple
> vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move
>
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Enforcement of the foundation documents is not defined in the constitution,
> so no, this is not a question of constitutional law.
I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that the foundation
documents do not imply any required behavior for project
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
> its application, without reaching the quorum that would be necessary to
> ex
On Friday 19 December 2008 01:44, Manoj Srivastava
wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately. I was
I'm sad to hear this. I think that you have done a great job as secretary.
> I concede that I have made mistakes with the current set of
> votes. And th
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 06:27:15PM +, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
>
> Thank you for all the good work you've done in that position over the years.
>
> >
Hello world,
I'd like to briefly suggest a different perspective on the issues at hand.
Rather than looking at whether this will delay lenny or not, it might be
more useful to just take a step back and work out what our principles are.
FWIW, I think what should be done about lenny follows pretty o
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:44:11 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
I'm sorry to hear about this decision.
Although I don't agree with some of your arguments around the current
GR, I have respect for you and your work, and I trust you
* Sandro Tosi [081218 20:51]:
> ehm? what? how is it un-democratic to have different votes for
> different things, targetted exactly to decide where something is
> allowed or not?
Then do different votes for different things. And put together what
belongs together.
But just having a "wait foreve
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:44:34AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> As one of the few people around who has been part of the Debian project
> as long as you have, please accept my sincere appreciation for your long
> history of meaningful contributions... and in particular your lengthy
> and honorable
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 20:33, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Sandro Tosi [081218 18:11]:
>> But that will delay even further Lenny release;
>
> Hey! You suggested to redo something. Thus you are suggesting to delay.
But maybe with the aim of a better target?
>> I think that a simple
>> vote like
* Sandro Tosi [081218 18:11]:
> But that will delay even further Lenny release;
Hey! You suggested to redo something. Thus you are suggesting to delay.
> I think that a simple
> vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move
> forward a release.
Please note that changing the v
Manoj,
As one of the few people around who has been part of the Debian project
as long as you have, please accept my sincere appreciation for your long
history of meaningful contributions... and in particular your lengthy
and honorable service as our secretary!
You have earned and retain my imm
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
Thank you very much for your work in such a difficult role for so long.
Debian is certainly a better project for your efforts.
> Mistakes happen. Mistakes can be recovered from. What can not,
>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
Thank you for all the good work you've done in that position over the years.
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petitio
Hi Gunnar,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 17:38, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sandro Tosi dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100]:
>> Hello,
>> I've started a new thread because follow 2 very long thread starts
>> being a little tedious.
>>
>> This voice is coming out more and more strong lately: why don't
On 11603 March 1977, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
:( Sorry to hear that. Whoever is your follower *will* have a hard
time.
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petition for the DAM to have me
Josselin Mouette (18/12/2008):
> Le jeudi 18 décembre 2008 à 08:44 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> > As to the people who emailed me that they are putting
> > together a petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project,
> > I hear you too.
>
> Regardless of what you did as th
Brian May dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:45:47AM +1100]:
> > (...)
> >A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> >which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> >issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
> >
> >B) If we
also sprach Manoj Srivastava [2008.12.18.1544 +0100]:
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
> too. I am going to spend the next few days evaluating how important the
> project is to me, a
Sandro Tosi dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100]:
> Hello,
> I've started a new thread because follow 2 very long thread starts
> being a little tedious.
>
> This voice is coming out more and more strong lately: why don't we
> simply delete the current gr_lenny and start another ballot, on
Le jeudi 18 décembre 2008 à 08:44 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
> petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
> too.
Regardless of what you did as the Secretary, I fail to see any reason to
f
Hi,
just so that I've said this here too:
On Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava
wrote:
> > >If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> > > vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or some
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately. I was
> planning on leaving the office soon, anyway, but I had a rewrite of
> Devotee underway, which would have made the software more useful for
> dif
On Thu Dec 18 08:44, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately
Thank you for your hard work in this post. I'm sorry to see that a few
zealots can cause so many hard working folks to consider leaving the
project. Personally, if we are to do witho
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I was just thinking of postposing the end-of-vote cron job, so
> no re-voting would be needed.
>
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but
- "Manoj Srivastava" wrote:
> I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately. I was
> planning on leaving the office soon, anyway, but I had a rewrite of
> Devotee underway, which would have made the software more useful for
> different people (different checks --LDAP.g
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one harping on /that/ point. None of
> the GR proposals mandate a particular interpretation of the legality of any
> component of the archive, the release team has never indicated that they
> intended to ignore legal problems wh
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:12PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
> canceled.
>
> My suggestion is to do a very simple vote first, with only two choices:
>
> a) continue with the release process and don't wait for further GRs
>
>
Hi folks,
I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately. I was
planning on leaving the office soon, anyway, but I had a rewrite of
Devotee underway, which would have made the software more useful for
different people (different checks --LDAP.gpg. and others), and allowed
De
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>So, while the power set of the options is not feasible, we could
> have a slew of options combining the various proposed options, if
> people wanted to vote on a compatible set of options.
No. As I've said, people want to vote
Hello,
I've started a new thread because follow 2 very long thread starts
being a little tedious.
This voice is coming out more and more strong lately: why don't we
simply delete the current gr_lenny and start another ballot, only
focusing on the *real* lenny release? All other options must go int
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who
> decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer
> decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority
> to anyon
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to
> the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet
> Debian.
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
cance
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots su
Manoj, please stop your logorrhea. By the time it would take to read
your 27 posts on this list in 8 hours, it would be enough to fix a
handful of bugs.
Le mercredi 17 décembre 2008 à 12:15 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Also, splitting a vote into multiple ballots, with related
> p
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You made comments, and in
> <874p1a6l0n@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> were instructed to
> get the approval of the proposer of the option in order for the
> secretary to change the title of the option. FWICT, you either did not
> attempt to do so,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>
If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
th
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the
> > issues are orthogonal.
> Can these people explain why they think so? ANd it would help if
> they could say why the arguments I present to say it is a single issue
> ar
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > > I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in
> > > mind. Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means
> > > that dissenting
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Also, resolving to do
> something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
> equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and
> adhereing to that.
No. It's simply taking a decision on the best way to reach
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> > I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
> > Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
> > votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if th
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
> current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
> restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I
> do not think the secretary has the
51 matches
Mail list logo