* Lucas Nussbaum [2013-03-19 07:44:32 CET]:
> But it's also about how we see our project. I would like Debian to be
> a very welcoming project, and I hate the fact that it's harder for some
> groups to get involved.
Given that the context of this statement is "lack of women in Debian",
why do yo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:17:41PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:39:17PM +0300, Moray Allan wrote:
> > It appears to me that some DPLs^Wpeople may merely be asking questions
> > that they find interesting and would like to see discussed. While
> > it's nice to see t
* Wouter Verhelst [2012-03-13 14:11:30 CET]:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > and there are also people who fight for their right to behave like
> > assholes and belittle scathingly against people that wish for a better
> > communicatio
Dear DPL candidates,
it happens every now and then, people assume bad faith in mails from
others and call their action silly and active tries to sabotage, and
there are also people who fight for their right to behave like assholes
and belittle scathingly against people that wish for a bette
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
This time with the key that's still in the keyring, only noticed after
sending that I haven't got it replaced in the keyring yet.
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2010-09-14 10:53:46 CEST]:
> ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi!
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2010-09-14 10:53:46 CEST]:
> ---
> The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
> To that end the project benefits from va
Hi!
* Charles Plessy [2010-03-24 19:09:32 +0900]:
> just for the record, I will not answer to insulting or accusatory
> emails. Some of them may contain interesting questions or comments,
> though. Please feel free to repeat them in a separate message if you
> also found them interesting.
Hi!
I have a question to the candidates: History has shown that DPLs more
or less disappear not too long after their period or at least reduce
their visible efforts immensly. I wonder where you see the reasons for
this trend, what your impression is about it and wether you try to
follow t
* Florian Weimer [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]:
> * Theodore Tso:
> > I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
> > Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now.
> > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which
> > relaxed the f
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:22:16PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The NM process is about making new DDs -- who participate fully in
> the project, and understand and agree with its goals. Not every useful
> contributor to Debian actually wants that status -- Matthew Garrett's one
> example of a for
Seconed.
* Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 21:40]:
> 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
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-18 11:01]:
> There are currently two proposals in discussion on debian-vote regarding
> a position statement on the GNU Free Documentation License. The texts
> are available at http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, and discussion
> can be found by following:
Along th
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 21:41]:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
>> No, the "keep non-free" alternative does not contain any provisions
>> limiting future discussion. It is also at best a "keep non-free for
>> now" option.
Yes, thats the way I
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 21:41]:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040308 21:40]:
>> No, the "keep non-free" alternative does not contain any provisions
>> limiting future discussion. It is also at best a "keep non-free for
>> now" option.
Yes, thats the way I
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 13:37]:
> At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
> think you should help to fix that bug, instead of writing to us about
> how unfair it is that some of us don't want to support a bug of
> someone else's driver any more.
Ah
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 13:37]:
> At present, I have no such need for that hardware. If you do, then I
> think you should help to fix that bug, instead of writing to us about
> how unfair it is that some of us don't want to support a bug of
> someone else's driver any more.
Ah
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]:
> * Gerfried
* "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 14:45]:
> I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
> to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is n
Hi!
Thanks, Andreas, for the Cc. Didn't mention that I am not subscribed
but I am reading answers in the archives -- though they would be delayed
then :) (no, its a real thanks this time, not sarcastic)
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-08 11:32]:
> * Gerfried
* "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 14:45]:
> I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want
> to break that promise?
Who says so? Why would the keep of non-free somewhere (might it be
nonfree.org or our pools) be a break of that promise? non-free is n
* Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
* Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-07 18:55]:
> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
If one votes that non-free will be purged completely, from what I
understand. Right?
Which option is: "Keep it as long as it has been moved to nonfree.org
* Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-09 19:30]:
> Maybe we could replace the sentence in question with "All candiates
> met the quorum requirement"? I think this would be much less
> confusing.
Especially for me as a translator for I don't grok the current sentence :)
Have fun,
Alfie
--
23 matches
Mail list logo
