Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:
>
>> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> 46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
Sorry, I didn't mean to send it here. I was quite under stress today,
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
> [ 7 ] Choice 1: Jonathan Walther
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: Matthew Garrett
> [ 2 ] Choice 3: Branden Robinson
> [ 4 ] Cho
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> >> > vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking
>> >> > with XFree86? If you can, please do so.
[...]
> Yes, but my point is that there are no packages availa
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:33:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:25:55PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > vendors, et al. But nevermind that. Can you make a case for sticking
>> > with XFree86? If you can, please do so.
>>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> schrieb:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:21:25 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:
>>> b) show me, in person, two picture ID's issued by a governemt
>>> that demonstrate who you are, a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> wrote:
> b) show me, in person, two picture ID's issued by a governemt
>that demonstrate who you are, and match the signed the
>signed picture in a)
Why two ID cards?
What if some german guy only has their "Person
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> What is sad is that there are many decisions in the Project which are
>> *not* made this way. I want a DPL that will promise to tell every
>> team "you must explain and defend your decisions".
>
> That's only a reasonable thing to do if you
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Anthony Towns wrote:
>>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
How about the creation of a checklist for meeting organisation and
reporting? Something along the lines of:
5) Does our write-up start with the problems we wish to address and
then logica
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> How about the creation of a checklist for meeting organisation and
>> reporting? Something along the lines of:
[...]
>> 5) Does our write-up start with the problems we wish to address and
>> then logically progress from there to the conclusions w
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>> The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
>> to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
[...]
> Er, let's quote every mention of "security" in Steve's mail:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Schuldei) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:30:02PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> What, by the way, are the intentions? Except "release faster", of
>> course?
>
> The initial intention of the release team meeting was to help the
> release team to find a way to deal w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Schuldei) wrote:
> Then the proposal is announced and some people get worked up about
> it. I hope this to be less of a problem in the future, when people not
> only look at the technical merits of a proposal but also at the
> intentions and problems people had to overco
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 13:14 +0100 schrieb Frank Küster:
>> However, we should be careful not to make the problem worse instead of
>> better: We don't gain much if anybody who wants to be informed then
>> would have to follow -devel *and
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Anthony Towns [2005.03.11.0158 +0100]:
>> There's a trivial way: moderate the lists. I think there are less
>> fascist ways that'll be both effective and more efficient. But
>> there's no point kidding ourselves that it'll be easy or that
>
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd actually say that any approach _other than_ working around
> problems while they can't be fixed, and keeping track of them so that
> they are fixed when they can be does Debian a great deal of harm.
Right, right. The disagreement between us seems to be about which
iss
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Newcomers to Debian have a bunch of hurdles to overcome these days. As
> part of finding a package and uploading it to the archive through a
> sponsor they're expected to:
>
> (a) find some piece of interesting software
> (b) that's not so interesting anyone else ha
Anthony Towns schrieb:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>>>Given I personally worked around the lack of ftpmaster support for
>>>pools for a good six to twelve months while developing testing, I
>>>think I've got a reasonable basis for thinking this isn't such a big
>>>deal.
>> This work wasn't targetted at
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:29:09PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>>
>> > DFSG-revisionists are the people who in the last year invented things
>> > like the "dissident test"
>>
>> search in debian-legal for "di
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, here's a simple train of thought:
>
> (1) Hrm, ftpmaster aren't doing things as quickly as normal.
> (2) Gosh, that probably means they're really busy.
> (3) I wonder what I could do that would help.
>
> Here's a train of thought that doesn't work so well:
>
>
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>>> It's hard to take this sort of discussion as anything but an attack
>>> on ftpmaster, since there are plenty of teams in Debian that're
>>> even less transparent and effective than us. But given how these
>>> sorts of
>> But they are less a hindrance
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> DFSG-revisionists are the people who in the last year invented things
> like the "dissident test"
search in debian-legal for "dissident test" in 2003.
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
pgpJGwjMCL2qe.pgp
Descript
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> With that hat on, this statement is perfectly acceptable, just as all
>> the mails you sent about NEW processing. The problem, to me, is that
>> you fail to see the issue from a different side, and you definitely
>> *should* as a DPL candidate. As a
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> For example, there is no excuse for blocking libs because of obvious
>> soname changes in new, for months now.
>
> They're not blocked, they're just not being done. The answers to your
> question are either "NEW is not being processed / because people
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's rumours on debian-devel that NEW processing is actual on hold
> (by decision rather than by default) but that wasn't communicated. Of
> course it may be false
It is false.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/03/msg00019.html
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think most people in Debian are community minded enough to
> find it difficult to work if they don't feel that the project -- as
> represented by the DPL, by delegates, by fellow developers, by users,
> whatever -- supports their activities. I think the problems posed by
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> anyway: what do you think the NEW issue is an example of?
>
> Not having enough time in the day.
>
> The resolutions to that are:
>
> (a) reprioritising things
> (b) making more time available
> (c) making things take less time
> (d) training
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:33:15PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
>>
>> Since the DPL should be a specialist in leadership and social issues:
>>
>> Please discuss the social differences between debian-release and
>> debian-kernel
>
> I absolutely don't fol
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
This is just a speculation. Probably you make this speculation based on
good facts, but I cannot, and pr
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might also consider in addition setting a reply-to towards
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or whatever is the ballot address of the
> current vote), to ease up on voting (how to vote? Hit reply, fill in you
> preferences after carefully researching them,
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just so totally American.
Aha. The united states' incarnation of Gassners Law.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) schrieb:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
>> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
>> we might get a representative vote this time.
>
> I s
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> >
>> > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
>> > sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
>> > release manager and the ctt
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
> sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
> release manager and the ctte had made clear to me that none of the
> ballot options will have positive eff
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
>> > this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
>> > discussion here?
>>
>> See the last part of the proposal.
>
> The last part of the proposal only indicates tha
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:35:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>> >
>> > "On the question on what software shou
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
> or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
> the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
> developers could settle the issue by a GR.
D
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
>> have expressed:
>>
>> * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
>> post-sar
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > The decision's delegated to the technical ctte; if you want to know
>> > which GRs will ensure they will make the decision you want you'll
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway. Language has no effect on release timing. Release policies have
> an effect on release timing. The following release policies are possible:
>
> * All programs in main must be DFSG-free
> * All GPLed firmware in main must comply with th
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> It has been said (repeatedly, over and over) that the effects ought to
>> be that the release of sarge can proceed according to the timeline and
>> practices that were current befo
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
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
[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
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:40:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Before you vote, you need to _think about the consequences of your vote_.
>> One of the things we would like to know is what *you* th
45 matches
Mail list logo
