On 21/07/25 at 19:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can think of a few more examples that caused controversies in in the
> past:
> - A system load monitor, about 20 years ago, that used a cartoon of a
> lady who was progressively undressed as the computer got warmer.
It was named 'hot-babe'.
Hi,
On 04/04/25 at 19:48 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> We didn't receive enough sponsorship for the recent Debian events (both
> DebConf23 and 24 made a significant dent in our funds), and we needed to
> buy hardware (the time where some companies gave it to us seems far
> away).
>
> The m
Hi Sergio,
Hi,
> I really don't understand why I wasn't Cc'ed in this thread. I wasn't
> even mentioned by name. BTW, thanks to Charles for bringing this
> conversation to my attention.
Sergio, thanks for your work on debuginfod.d.n, and sorry for not Ccing
you. (I must admit I only discovere
Hi,
As someone who still cares a lot about Debian, but who hasn't been able
to pay as much attention to the project lately, I was wondering:
How is Debian doing currently?
What are the recent successes I might have missed?
Where did we fail or under-perform?
Which big challenges do you see ahe
Hi Gianfranco,
Thanks!
On 04/04/25 at 11:35 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> >What are the recent successes I might have missed?
>
> Server adoption, market share, reproducibility efforts, gdb symbols
> handling...
Regarding gdb symbols handling, could you be more specific? I found
https:
Hi,
Quoting Andreas' reply in an earlier thread:
On 18/03/25 at 16:14 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Understanding Debian's financial situation is essential for the DPL, as
> one of the DPL's responsibilities is making decisions on funding
> requests. However, it is important to emphasize that the
On 05/04/24 at 14:24 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> Am Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:56:42AM +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > In your platform and answers to questions here, I feel that you mainly
> > focus on the visible side of De
Hi Andreas,
In your platform and answers to questions here, I feel that you mainly
focus on the visible side of Debian for the public, that is, the
distribution we produce.
However, the role of the DPL is a lot about working on fixing all the
little annoyances that make it less fun for contributo
Hi Sruthi,
In your platform and answers to questions here, I feel that you mainly
focus on the "behind the scenes" aspects of Debian for the public, that
is, how the project works.
This is of course extremely important, but to put it bluntly, I believe
that for Debian to be successful, it first n
Hi,
On 08/12/23 at 21:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> [ ] Choice 2: The EU should clarify that non-commercial FOSS is exempted
"non-commercial FOSS" sounds like CC BY-NC-SA (which is not FOSS). What
this option is trying
Seconded.
On 20/11/23 at 17:54 +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I second adding this version.
>
> * Luca Boccassi [231119 23:22]:
> > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at
> > this point:
> >
> > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
> >
> > Debian Publ
On 15/11/23 at 14:13 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 13:53, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > On 15/11/23 at 11:38 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 06:23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On 15/11/23 at 11:38 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 06:23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > On 15/11/23 at 00:49 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > What do you think? Here's what I came up with:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > FWIW, I
On 15/11/23 at 00:49 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> What do you think? Here's what I came up with:
Hi,
FWIW, I would likely second something along those lines. Some comments:
> The Debian project however notes that not enough emphasis has been
> employed in all parts of these regulations
On 13/09/22 at 14:49 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > Right. I think that it's important to realize that the FSF and Debian
> > use different tactics to promote Free Software. The FSF focuses on
> > promoting a clean ideology to th
On 12/09/22 at 12:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
> > To me, the FSF's attempts to produce an operating system lead to the
> > range of GNU/Linux distributions that came about during that time, which
> > we all still use.
>
> Right, I think both things are true.
>
> I thi
On 17/03/22 at 16:54 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> As someone who used to care a lot about Debian, but who hasn't been able
> to pay much attention to the project lately, I was wondering:
On 17/03/22 at 13:57 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52 PM Lucas N
Thanks for you answers
On 17/03/22 at 09:50 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> If elected, I hope to form a Strategy Council that will re-evaluate as
> well as expand on those answers, and have solutions ready at all
> times.
Interesting. What would be the composition, roles, duties of that
Strategy C
Hi,
As someone who used to care a lot about Debian, but who hasn't been able
to pay much attention to the project lately, I was wondering:
How is Debian doing currently?
What are the recent successes I might have missed?
Where did we fail or under-perform?
Which big challenges do you see ahead
Hi,
I'm sorry for not noticing this yesterday, but ...
On 13/03/22 at 00:43 +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
> =
>
> Rationale
> =
>
>
Hi,
On 05/03/22 at 20:49 +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:47:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > A suggestion:
> > >
> > > An alternative to se
Hi,
On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> A suggestion:
>
> An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
> accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
> they did not not).
>
> This would still allow voters to check the vote but wou
Hi,
First,
> Many thanks to Russ and Wouter for all their work on this.
+1
If I understand correctly, most agree that we would like to keep
the discussion period short in most cases. But at the same time, in
exceptional circumstances, some would like a way to extend it.
Instead of the quite c
Hi,
On 18/03/21 at 20:44 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I've been pondering how it might be possible to spend more of Debian's
> money, and it occurred to me that we could allocate a budget to each DD
> which they could spend on pretty-much anything (as long as, for Debian
> funds, the expenditure i
On 27/03/20 at 08:18 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 27 Mar 2020 at 09:39AM +01, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>
> > My point was to ask if there are any points in this list that could be
> > harmful in the scenario proposed by Lucas.
>
> We try to stop packages of sufficiently low quality
On 27/03/20 at 09:23 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2020 8:40:11 AM EDT Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 27/03/20 at 12:23 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > > At least during my many years of Ubuntu archive administration I've
> > > actually se
On 27/03/20 at 12:23 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> At least during my many years of Ubuntu archive administration I've actually
> seen quite a lot of packages which contained non-distributable files, had
> hilariously broken maintainer scripts (which could then also damage *other*
> software on your
On 26/03/20 at 14:42 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2020-03-26 14:28:47)
> > That said, I have never had a package rejected for reasons that would
> > outright keep it from entering Debian. Each package I have had
> > rejected could have as easily been accepted into
Hi,
For as long as I can remember, there has been complaints about the
delays caused by NEW processing (and
https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat.html shows that we constantly have
250-300 packages waiting to be processed).
What is your diagnostic of this issue?
What solutions do you envision about
On 01/12/19 at 11:48 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV
> Timing"):
> > The reason I didn't reorder it yet, is because it's talked about
> > like that. But I guess I can just reorder it on the page, keep the
> > letter but change the n
Hi,
Note that I'm not in the best position to propose changes, because I
am unlikely to vote it very high in any case.
On 29/11/19 at 11:44 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 2/ It says:
> > > If policy consensus cannot be reached on such a facility, the
> > > Technical Committee should decide based o
Hi,
I've spent some time (re-)reading all proposals. Here are various
comments:
Ordering
In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
Proposal E / Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Req
On 21/11/19 at 13:58 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> It is a important bug (although not a serious one) when
> packages should work without systemd but they do not. Developers may
> perform non-maintainer uploads to fix these bugs.
I think that it would be better to leave details of the BTS out of th
On 07/11/19 at 13:59 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Thanks for helping; resolving these sort of ambiguities are really
> appreciated.
>
> >>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> Lucas> Hi,
> Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -050
Hi,
On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
>
>
> The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the
> preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service.
> However, Debian remains an environment whe
On 02/04/19 at 17:24 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> ¹ with an exception for the 1% of packages which actually really need it
> and are deploying DPKG_ROOT at least. The rest should really make due
> with declarations of what it needs rather than buggy imperative scripts.
Can you summarize the
On 31/03/19 at 09:39 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away" and
> > more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the benefit of it
> > being one way, not a dozen d
On 21/03/19 at 18:57 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Also, it will be a drastical change and has many far reaching
> consequences and needs lots of work nefore we are near it.
I'm probably missing something, but it doesn't sound like a lot of work
to me? It's "just" a service that:
- gets notified o
On 21/03/19 at 23:04 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I do think that we should perhaps also be more diligent when
> considering non-technical consequences of our decisions.
I'm curious: can you give an example here?
Lucas
cond time today.
Lucas
On 21/03/19 at 18:29 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 for the suggestion of Lucas
>
> -1 for discussing this on debian-vote making it hard to find later
>
> Reply-To set to debian-devel.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
On 21/03/19 at 16:52 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Questions about "Winding down my Debian
> involvement""):
> > On 15348 March 1977, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > I won't write a long reply because it's not that important to the DPL
> > > election, but I did want to note that
On 21/03/19 at 08:38 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > So, to answer your question, I do think having a wide discussion and
> > then some final decision for it scheduled would be useful. I wouldn't
> > want to force dh9+ per sé (people still use CDBS and are apparently
> > happy with it), but I do ag
Hi,
An unofficial motto for Debian (unofficial because it is not part of our
foundation documents) is "the universal Operating System".
Despite the fact that it was never (AFAIK) properly defined, it has been
used as a argument on various occasions (the discussions about the
Vancouver proposal ab
Hi,
You are probably familiar with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
>From your perspective, what are Debian's main strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats?
Note that if you prefer not to frame this in the context of SWOT
analysis, you can also answer the following four quest
On 14/03/19 at 16:00 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > So, thinking a bit more about that, and using
> > https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html as a basis, a split
> > that could maybe work is:
&g
On 14/03/19 at 00:05 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> What could work is a group of people that are elected together, agree
> beforehand on how to share the various areas of responsibility, and
> synchronize very frequently to align their views. But it's probably hard
> to be
On 14/03/19 at 00:01 -0700, Jose Miguel Parrella wrote:
> lucas wrote:
> > What could work is a group of people that are elected together, agree
> > beforehand on how to share the various areas of responsibility, and
> > synchronize very frequently to align their views. But it's probably hard
> > t
On 13/03/19 at 21:04 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> How much of the DPL's financial role can be delegated?
> I understand that for example absent instructions otherwise the DPL is
> our expendature approval point for SPI (and presumably the other trusted
> organizations).
>
> Would the governing proc
On 14/03/19 at 12:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:05 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Also, from the DPL POV, it would be very useful to have an annual
> > report on Debian finances. I don't know if this exists nowadays.
>
> Some of the TOs hav
Hi,
Disclaimer: I was the DPL between 2013 and 2015. My recollection of that
time might not be entirely correct, and Debian might have changed quite
a bit since then. I must admit that I haven't followed Debian closely
enough to know some details!
(And I hope that other former DPLs will post thei
Dear Chris, dear Mehdi,
How is the release process doing? What is your guesstimate for the
release date? If you were asked that in a press interview, is there
something that you would like to stress about the release process or the
upcoming release?
(Yes, I'm aware that this is mostly outside of
Hi Chris,
On 17/03/17 at 17:33 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > One thing I value in Debian is that, when working on Debian, we can mostly
> > forget who is the employer of contributors […] It might kill a lot of fun
> > for me if other contributors were Debian employees.
>
> I understand your conce
Hi Mehdi,
In you platform, you mention the partners program, and apparently a lot
of progress was made recently. This was a (good) surprise for me. You
write:
> With the help of the new partners team I formed during my first term,
> we started to make a list of current partners and sponsors. We ar
Hi,
First, thanks a lot for running for DPL. I'm a bit disappointed by the
amount of discussion so far. DPL campaigns used to be the time of the
year when we take a step back and look at what we are doing (and should
do). It's a pity that we seem to be losing that tradition (even if it's
probably
Hi,
You write:
> Thirdly, I will create our own outreach initiative. The Outreachy project has
> been incredibly successful both in involving new developers under-represented
> in free software but also as a marketing coup for the GNOME project. Whilst a
> Debian-specific enterprise could not be
Hi,
You don't detail in your platform how you plan to free time to work on
DPL tasks. What do you plan to give up?
Lucas
Hi Mehdi,
Last year, Ana started a great thread about the role of the DPL[1].
I wonder where you stand wrt the various positions in that thread?
What will be your priorities when deciding what to work on?
What do you see as tasks that the DPL must do, should do, may do,
shouldn't do, mustn't do?
Hi,
On 21/03/16 at 16:29 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> How do you see Debian right now?
>
> How do you imagine Debian to be in one year, when you will be
> summarizing the recent history in your campaign for re-election?
>
> How do you imagine Debian to be in the distant future of IT, say, three
>
On 05/03/16 at 23:33 +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to the constitution (5.2. Appointment), project
> leader elections should begin "six weeks before the leadership
> post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately."
Hi,
We might have a s
On 20/03/15 at 20:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:56:23PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Neil McGovern [2015-03-20 19:27 +0100]:
> > > I'd be more sympathetic to funding someone (perhaps via an
> > > internship, or gap year student who's going on to accou
On 14/03/15 at 23:25 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> - Financial status not clear: We have money but we don't spend it.
I'm not pointing specifically to you here (Neil has a similar statement
in his platform), but I think that we need to be a bit careful here. "We
don't spend it" is not a fair charac
There has been some discussions about the focus moving to other areas of
Free Software, distributions being solved problems, containers as a
alternative/better way to ship software, etc.
In five years, what should Debian's position and role be in the Free
Software ecosystem?
Are there other positi
On 13/03/15 at 18:25 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> However, I've answered some of the above in a interview for the
> publicity team, so look out for that. I wouldn't want to spoil the
> work that they've put in :)
Note that while you cover one strength (the social contract) and one
weakness (the v
Hi,
In his platform, Neil wrote:
> I will spend some money we have horded. Debian currently holds
> approximately $200,000 at SPI alone. Our donators didn't give us money
> for it to be sat around in a bank account, we should spend it to make
> the project more successful.
Neil: how will your app
Hi,
You are probably familiar with SWOT analysis
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis).
From your perspective, what are Debian's main strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats?
- Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
As I've been asked at FOSDEM, and reached a decision, I would like to
make a more official statement.
It has been a pleasure and a honor to be the Debian Project Leader since
2013. Debian is really a fantastic project to be part of, with a unique
community. The recent times have not been the
Hi,
On 18/12/14 at 00:13 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 09:55:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, [December] 18th,
> > > 2014
> > > Votes must be
On 16/12/14 at 21:35 -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 16/12/2014 16:02, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > - 'Option 2' chooses to subtract the number of resignations/removals
> > from the required number of expiries, which could result in some TC
> > members exceeding the term limit, in
On 16/12/14 at 21:02 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > First draft:
>
> Looks quite good, but I'm unhappy about minor things.
> I propose the following more
On 16/12/14 at 17:21 +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Jakub" == Jakub Wilk writes:
>
> Jakub> * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-12-16, 16:55:
> >>> It would also be nice that already suggested what the wording of
> >>> the options should be.
> >>
> >> How about:
> >>
> >
On 06/12/14 at 13:26 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:37:30PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Rationale
> > -
> > First, I think that there is wide agreement that a more regular
> > turn-over among TC members would be a good thing. And
On 02/12/14 at 12:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If there is consensus that simplicity is preferable and Lucas won't mind
> dealing with the upcoming ties (in a way that is constitutionally
> sound), I'll be happy to formally accept an amendment to that end.
I would find it a bit strange to
Hi,
On 01/12/14 at 18:44 +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> > On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote:
> >> On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> > As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
> >>
> >> Why not support the a
On 01/12/14 at 15:43 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Yes. The goal of the proposals is to turn over approximately two per year
> and
> we've just lost three, so I think that's reasonable.
Proposal 1 (Stefano's) puts a lot of emphasis on the removal of the two
most senior members. Imagine for a
On 01/12/14 at 21:12 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But right now, I'm not sure to understand what your main concern is, and
> I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more. With the current
> transitional measure, the proposal 2-S will de facto do nothing for a
> full year. The first expiri
[ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote ]
Hi,
I am hereby formally submitting an alternative proposal, between
double-dashed lines below (formally it's an "amendment", but I don't
expect Stefano to accept it, as we discussed it before). I am also
calling for seconds (see below).
=
On 21/11/14 at 10:45 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are three different variants that consider resignations/removals:
>
> "2-R": <20141119091345.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, formalized in
><20141120204606.ga30...@upsilon.cc>
> expire the 2-R most
On 23/11/14 at 12:32 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will
> > propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option
> > compa
Hi,
On 22/11/14 at 12:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be:
> > 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD
> > I'm assuming y
On 21/11/14 at 10:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That said, I do believe we are almost in the realm of bikeshed/minutiae
> here, and I would see as a problem having a ballot with the above 6
> options + FD. So I do hope we can converge/compromise, at least among
> option proposers, on a sin
Hi,
I'm trying to summarize the thread here, so that others have an easy way
in.
Reminder: all pointers are to message-ids. You can read the mails using
https:///lists.debian.org/MESSAGE-ID .
There's an agreement that more turnover inside the TC would be a good
thing, by favoring the replacement
On 20/11/14 at 13:04 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a
> >> lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a
Hi Phil,
On 19/11/14 at 16:44 +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>
> ...
> >> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
> >> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
> >> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback
On 20/11/14 at 08:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent
> > > > past
> > > > proved how the role can be
On 19/11/14 at 22:31 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I fear that
On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
> automatically reappoint a current member:
>
> The social pressures here don't work very well. In general, any
> approach that has the existing committee decide whether to retain
On 19/11/14 at 19:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> > of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> > arguments below, but I d
On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
> > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members,
&
On 19/11/14 at 11:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Now, let's assume that I'm a member of the TC, not among the two most
> > senior members, and that I feel a bit exhausted about that, not really
>
On 19/11/14 at 15:20 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> > half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> > fed up that it doesn't mat
Hi,
First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
Colin) is:
aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.ga30...@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y
don 2009-01-
On 19/11/14 at 10:13 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - The main change wrt the original text by Anthony is that the provision
> > of not expiring senior members if less-senior ones have resigned is
> > gone. In its stead, there is a provision that inhibits expiries from
On 18/11/14 at 11:33 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
>
>
On 09/11/14 at 14:42 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
> > system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
> > prerequisite for its
Hi,
On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
> the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
> most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
> at least 4.5 years ago. N is d
On 09/11/14 at 13:16 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> I too value standardization. Judging by decisions taking by other large
> distributions and upstream development, a fifth, "only support systemd
> as init system" would thus have been the most sensible option. But for
> political reasons that's
On 04/11/14 at 15:54 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
> least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
> I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
> on that specific matter.
Hi Holger,
(I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
best for Debian, and that their opinions should be respected.)
Here is how I
On 04/11/14 at 18:45 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Would it help to amend point 4.2.5 of our constitution, to request
> > that in addition to the "announcement on a publicly-readable
> > electronic mailing list", a copy of proposals, amendments, sponso
On 04/11/14 at 19:27 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > On 04/11/14 at 17:53 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=
1 - 100 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
