Hi Kurt,
sorry for answering so late, but I had a "great" combination of being
sick and too much work.
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150921 08:34]:
> I would also really like to see such text replaced by a diff since
> it's for more obvious what the changes really are.
I think I said in 201509
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150829 16:03]:
> (Or I might be totally confused about the effects of all the
> changes you're doing. Those are all non-obvious changes that seem
> to change more than the things you want to fix.)
IMHO your questions should be answered by others already, plus the
c
* Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150901 13:52]:
> It'd be good if you (as well as Andreas, as GR proposer) could comment
> on the full series of commits in that repository, to make sure we all
> agree on a constitution diff.
Up to now
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/odyx/supermajor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150831 11:23]:
> Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit :
> > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice
> > for the voter. In that case, the damage is already done a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi together,
we (as the Technical Committee) have encountered two bugs in the
constitution which we like to fix. For this reason, I propose the following
General Resolution to change the constitution.
Please note that we put both issues into one GR p
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [150317 08:42]:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:28:17PM +, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on why dropping §5 is desirable for us?
>
> I take you don't see it as desirable then :)
Doing that will generate additional work. This might be justified b
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which su
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
> So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify
> paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
>
> ---
> 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR
>procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can
* Iain Lane (la...@debian.org) [140302 19:28]:
> The rest of the discussion notwithstanding, where do you think that
>
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > […]
> > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> > resolutions:
> >
> > 11th Feb as m
* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [140302 19:17]:
> Colin Watson writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> > As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
> >> > text
* Paul Tagliamonte (paul...@debian.org) [140302 19:02]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:55:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed
> > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't
> > overturn it.
>
> The fact t
* Matthew Vernon (matth...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140302 17:41]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> > How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> > decision does not replac
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140302 13:07]:
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> claus
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> > systems"):
> > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > written.
> >
> > Do y
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [100325 18:18]:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > > 4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
> > > archive is very difficult:
> > > [...]
> > > How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing suc
* Margarita Manterola (margamanter...@gmail.com) [100318 21:03]:
> I would like to support as many architectures as possible. We cannot
> deny the passage of time, however, and so we must accept that some
> architectures are bound to stop being supported. This even happened
> some years ago with
* Yavor Doganov (ya...@gnu.org) [100317 14:55]:
> - mips/mipsel are probably the most hated archs by DDs in the past few
> months :-), and there's no ironclad way to secure their future too.
First of all, the needs-build queue is almost empty on mipsel (and was
on mips till we lost the hard disk
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100317 01:52]:
> I propose that we reshape the sections and priorities of our archive, so that
> it is easy to remove from Testing any RC bug that is not in a core pakcage,
> and is old and not tagged RFH.
We already do that, provided the RC bug is old enough.
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [100319 22:57]:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:44:23PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Is there any legitimate reason that wanna-build access should be
> > > restricted to any group smaller than
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [100322 21:50]:
> All in all, this is probably a topic where a quick and easy
> devotee-based poll might show where the DD body stands in the trade-off
> between the advantages and disadvantages of enabling popcon submissions
> by default, and finally get this
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [100323 01:47]:
> AJ's question, and particularly his other longer response to the question
> about disappearing DPLs, really highlight what I think are some
> disagreements between he and I about how we see Debian. I fundamentally
> do not believe in the "grow or
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081231 21:55]:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for
> > the "first call" on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
> > should be an instance of appeal like the TC (though this isn't technica
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> > > the DFS
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
>
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
> [ difference between options 2 and 5]
> It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
> furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where n
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
> Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
> (0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) < 1
> Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
> (1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) < 3
> Dropping O
* Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl) [081223 01:44]:
> Given that the current status of the current "lenny firmware" vote is that
> it will go forward, I would appreciate if the DPL and/or the Project
> Secretary could rule on the following issue.
On which constitutional rules?
The secretary can int
* Ean Schuessler (e...@brainfood.com) [081217 14:53]:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
>
> > With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
> > non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
> > a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers t
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
> > * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
>
> >> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
> >> with you. I don't think there's any justificatio
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
> you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
> requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
> of the SC and the DFSG to
* Bas Wijnen (wij...@debian.org) [081216 00:37]:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
> > process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
> > think some additional clarity ar
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 23:01]:
> Option 1 is either meaningless or an
> override of a delegate decision, but the ballot doesn't reflect this.
As Option 1 doesn't say it overrides a delegate decision, I read it as a
position statement of the day.
> Option 4 looks equivalent
* Loïc Minier (l...@dooz.org) [081214 21:28]:
> [ MFU debian-vote@ ]
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
>
> I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
The topic is misleading at best. This is "don't release lenny".
Ch
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> > or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
>
> Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
> and tittle of
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081201 01:15]:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:56AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > ,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits
> > as needed ]
> > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 18:02]:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a
> > wording?
>
> If a vote supersedes a part of a foundation document but does not specify
> editi
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 16:26]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >
> > > What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
> > > DFSG violations in main.
> >
> > Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 15:28]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Honestly, the time wasted on this whole GR cycle is orders of magnitude more
> > than the time it would have taken to just finish removing the sourceless
> > firmware from the m
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
> > decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
> > would leave the decision w
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081114 21:01]:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
> >
> > I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
>
> I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution:
>
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081112 16:31]:
> I think I agree with the suggestion of creating a new archive section
> for firmware - packages that are acknowledged to not meet the same
> standards as main, but checked so that we know they're still legally
> shippable by default on official
* Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > for release? Is there a particular reason that bit of software does
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081109 18:26]:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > | against each other.
>
> I believe this phrase inval
* Alexander Reichle-Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081103 19:00]:
> Hi!
>
> Andreas Barth schrieb:
> > In case any of the proposals get enough seconds, I would propose then:
> >
> > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
>
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081027 16:15]:
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. Given that we have known for two pr
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081101 09:26]:
> Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold.
I'm sorry to say but that happens only if the resolution says so ("If
such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers, or if it is
proposed by the Technical Committe
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081031 09:37]:
> I wonder if we should haven an option on the ballot that asks the DAM to
> basically go forward with their idea, explicitly authorizing them to
> merge the DM setup in to it?
I think it would be helpful to have that as an explicit option.
>
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081029 20:58]:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
> > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
>
> I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment a
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080503 01:09]:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 11:31:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So, this seems to indicate that the way to add new people to the release
> > team isn't an issue. It however indicates also that there must be a way
> >
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 16:55]:
> Now, I must admit that cronyism or not, the release management
> seems to be working, but at one point so were some of the other teams,
> which have come under criticism of late for being obstructive.
So, this seems to indicate tha
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 15:45]:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 11:51:53 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080502 01:27]:
> > Why not making it the other way, allowing the DPL to remove people if
> >
people are
delegated there.
And, reading the current constitution, we already have it that way.
Good.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
discern when we're reaching concensus and what to do when we
> aren't. Adding more people isn't likely to fix that.
Agreed.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080317 00:24]:
>
> On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:13 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
> > > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Th
I would prefer if people would fix their release goal / critical bugs
instead of preparing complex arguments how to change the tech ctte at
places where it is not broken.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 22:27]:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
> > 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
> > unilaterally. He might replace an existin
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 12:46]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
> > 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
> > unilaterally. He might rep
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 10:51]:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> > > #436093 for those following along at home.
> >
> > It could be dpkg as well.
>
> Can you justify
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080310 09:46]:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> > his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> > re
ment branch, like it e.g. happened
recently with dpkg.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
otes against (since there are only
> at most 8 members, you can't have 7 votes for and 2 against; and 3 votes
> against can't be defeated; the Chairman's casting vote also can't save
> an option that's got 5 votes for and 2 against).
I would rather prefer to
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080309 22:05]:
> * Andreas Barth [Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:28:52 +0100]:
>
> > as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog
> > his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into
> > revision c
/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ase all sides accept that the vote is "the final decision" (and in that
case, we could equally well e.g. use the TC for a decision, or anything
else as long as all involved people are accepting the result in the
end).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUB
".
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
don't even need
> > > to
> > > vote any more :-)
> >
> > Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
>
> No. And that's a good thing.
Agreed (to the second, the first is just a fact).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-
ill be made using the method specified in section
>A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
>as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is "None
>Of The Above".
> 8. The Project Leader serves for one year from
thin this goal than the current
proposal. (Because it is way more natural to just make it part of the NM
process.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat e.g. Russ has
> > written) to warrant it risks. Joergs proposal seems better to me.
>
> The 900 non-DD maintainers are not a big enough use case for you?
I hope you notice that even I'm on that list marked as non-DD maintainer
...
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-ba
he
> policy is not 100% clear.
You might notice that not all buildds that use the wanna-build on
buildd.d.o are DSA maintained. And not in all cases are DSA members the
buildd maintainers, even in cases where the machine is in ud-ldap.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 13:27]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
> > > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
> > > > > Sure. But why shouldn
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
> > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
> > Rewirting from scratch
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
> > > Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their teams
> > > packages? And a subscriber and active Debi
committee (it shouldn't be too difficult, they are
> part of the DM committee).
Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
Cheers,
Andi
s part of the solution.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
h for that. So, what
is the point?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 22:04]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]:
> > > I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different
> > > packages successfuly for my customers sinc
ian archive. Any proposal which will allow
uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(And, BTW, I would prefer to not write the tool to be used down in a GR,
but that's a minor issue for me.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070605 21:09]:
> So, how about we settle this once and for all? The DFSG is not an
> orthogonal basis for a vector space. The world won't end if we add a new
> point to it that some folks feel is redundant with what it already says.
> If there's a principle tha
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e questionable now that the new release itself
> didn't seem to fix any bugs, yet introduced new ones (such as #410497).
Unfortunatly, 2.6.17 contains a whole bunch of other RC bugs that are
fixed with 2.6.18. So, it has been considered, but the cure would be
worse than the desease.
Che
doing.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070303 22:21]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If someone is connected with a trolling organization, or being convicted
> > for e.g. falsification of a balance sheet, this is something I want to
> > know pre-
to
know pre-voting.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s doesn't contain any
approval or disapproval of any action on our servers, but just a
disapproval to this concept.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing to an experimental version of a library it is certainly my
responsibility to fix it, independend whether I uploaded that package
together with the source or not.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
ls like
> dpkg-buildpackage could even generate it automatically.
That sounds like a good idea anyways. Perhaps we can start with "be an
optional part" for starters, and see how it performs.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 10:00]:
> I paste here the last instance of the draft proposal by the debian kernel team
> [1]. Well, mostly me and Frederik, with direct input from Manoj, and
> reflecting
> assorted comments from others, Steve and Anthony being the most prominent
> ones
ecause someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
> their body by banning somebody.
This is wrong. d-release is a role account, and we made sure it is
treated so.
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
this
GRs is essential for the release of etch, I would like to go on to vote
soon.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ges in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
> number of very different proposals).
perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
now.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/and
and
> | the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at
> | DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the
> | original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997.
> `
I'm seconding both of these proposals.
Cheers,
And5
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
side the kernel on the host
> > processor. Whatever the project's opinion on firmware, madwifi is
> > clearly non-free.
>
> Yes, that's why we (including Aurélien) want to keep it in non-free.
But that doesn't get changed then anyways with Steve's proposal.
y (i.e.
included inside the kernel) to a better way. I don't think that it is a
good idea to make the requirements for the (technical and social) better
implementation tougher than for the old implementation (and also,
technical differenes shouldn't make an ethical difference).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t;.
Of course, the developers can revisit their decisions later, and if it
has become practical, drop the 4. in another GR when the time has come.
(And frankly speaking, the best way to make changes like that is IMHO a
GR. We just need to learn how to survive GRs without making a flamefest
out of
and
>
> 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such as
> images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG without
> requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and
>
> 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware
> shall also not be considered a program.
seconded.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
