On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything
Mike O'Connor writes:
> And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses. Some of
> them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very
> clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary
> packages. Some don't have this requirement in the license
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> > copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
> > this, I propose we ame
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to ini
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek spoke thus..
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> > copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
> > this, I propose
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus..
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:41:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be
>> >authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you
>> >encourage a similar position for bounties
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:47:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>>
>> I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too
>> that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that?
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.d
Josselin Mouette writes:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
Have we really reached the end of the normal informal discussion
process on this issue without resolution? Proposing a formal GR now
seems very premature.
> If you need to understand the rat
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:04 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
> Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a
> method.
Call it extortion if you want, but this is probably going to happen to a
number of large packages unless this requirement goes away.
--
.''`.
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.
Also
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
> this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
> (basically, what we c
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:34 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright
> still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all
> authors.
IMHO the policy is already clear on it. Furthermore, I don’t thin
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote:
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
>
> 8<
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > What do you think about such a proposal?
>
> Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal,
> instead of proposing it to the developers
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Some of these packages are very well maintained and others.. well,
> bug numbers sometimes speak for themselves. For these packages we have
> that cool text on the PTS pages: "The package is of priority standard
> or higher, you
On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
> something like "take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
> to calculate Q".
Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying "20 out of 1000
sho
Hi,
On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution a
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> There
Neil McGovern writes:
> Except I'm not sure this would be legal under non-profit law, unless
> you're very careful. There's an issue that funds can't be used to pay
> someone the equivilent of a 'wage' in this way.
US non-profits can hire employees, but I believe there are conflict of
interest l
Matthew Johnson writes:
> 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
> 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
>want to override the FD (?)
This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for
this to be a m
Josselin Mouette writes:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
> > P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
> > much. Oh well... :-)
>
> Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
>
> What's your o
Hi!
Joerg Jaspert schrieb:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> > debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> > title, especially the 87wsajgef
On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be
> >authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you
> >encourage a similar position for bounties offered as part of the Google
> >Summer of Code, for example?
>
> N
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirement
> There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
> are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
> is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
> not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
> 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.
Hi,
as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
Resolution.
8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
accurate and up-to-date listing o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
> floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
>
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolution
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this s
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> t
Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:04:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> > b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> > as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
> > period or to over
Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
> developers to spons
On Sat Mar 21 15:49, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are
Hi,
and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size o
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I thi
Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>
> I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too
> that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that?
>
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny
Hi Steve,
First I plan to produce a
This seems to have stalled a bit, so trying to get bark on track here.
There seems to be several sorts of vote here:
1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1)
2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1)
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly tempor
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
>
> Hi again Charles!
>
> >I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
> >"Collaborative maintenance should
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:50:52AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Other potential usages of Debian moneys are bounties, to which I'm not
> opposed in principle. However, they should obey to very specific
> rules. The first one is that no one already contributing to Debian
> should be authorized
la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
> P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
> much. Oh well... :-)
Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
What's your opinion on membership procedures?
Last year there were some rough proposals fo
44 matches
Mail list logo
