onsume software from other sources?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 28 juillet 2007 =E0 19:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
>> Sure, "Don't quit Debian then" is a valid response (though I'm perhaps=20
>> old-fashioned in terms of thinking that as a full member
means I tend to upload less often). So DM
status would make life easier for me and arguably improve the quality of
Debian to a certain extent.
On the other hand, I can understand a reluctance to add yet another
catagory of contributors to Debian just to make me happy.
--
Matthew Garrett |
et that you've worked for them
at some point.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
annel. How are you actually defining "member"?
(Just to be clear, I'm not in any way trying to imply that you've
engaged in any sort of illegal activity or anything)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remi Vanicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While I appreciate that "member" is almost certainly something without
>> any especially well defined meaning, you seem to have had a @gnaa.us
>> email address
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> While I appreciate that "member" is almost certainly something without
>> any especially well defined meaning, you seem to have had a @gnaa.us
>> email address an
there's evidence of you having been an operator on
#gnaa at some point. What distinction do you make between membership and
association?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.htm
, for instance
[2] I appreciate that I have not always provided any sort of good
example in this respect. I've been making various changes in my life in
an attempt to avoid that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to
> legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result.
"I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ
rather than me"? Co
e binary-only pieces of software that execute
> *in kernel space*, *on the central processing unit*. Linux contains
> a few blobs.
Where?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rmware-type
material (I think I even proposed doing this some time ago), and I think
there'd be an argument for including it on the CDs by default. At the
very least, it'd make it possible for people to make a choice that they
feel non-free firmware is acceptable without going so far
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
>> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
>> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
&
ble
> interface and the kernel had a bochs included by default to run them?
No. There's plenty of hardware with free drivers, and I think that us
refusing to provide the non-free ones does make a difference. I run no
non-free drivers on any of my hardware. At the point where it'
vide an incentive to
implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything other than cost us
users without providing any extra freedom.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;s
shipped by Debian", but we could also define it as "A system consisting
of a computer and a Debian installation" or "Whatever is provided by
Debian and run on the host processor".
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mware, madwifi is
clearly non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
believing you're trying to do
damaging things?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mac Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett, to support your claim, will you make public any
> objection(s) you posted to that August 2005 thread, as an example,
> or state that you posted none?
No need - Mark Ray did so earlier in the week.
> Well, I'm fai
an contributor into a several hundred message flamewar.
> Replies to final paragraph to -project, please, else direct.
Clearing up misleading claims should be done in the same forum as the
misleading claims.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"
ing a motion to forcibly
delegate various people within the project?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons.
What were those obvious reasons? You and Branden stood against each
other despite agreeing to be on each other's team, so I'm curious as to
why the same isn't true this year.
--
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 16:58]:
>> Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
>> attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
>> elmo's
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-10 15:58:15]:
>> Ok. Based on what we've discussed on IRC, you'll admit that Andreas
>> attempted to get at least one person to agree to take responsibility for
>
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-10 13:41:29]:
>> No, that doesn't make sense. Phrasing it like that makes it sound like
>> the GR was intended to have no effect, but at the time you were willing
>&
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last November, you and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would
> have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal
> delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were
> unwilling to comply.
It&
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 16:25]:
>> No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleading answers to
>> direct questions (he repeatedly denies wanting to replace people, but
>> attempted to get at le
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060310 14:42]:
>> [...]
>
> You reiterate things where Andreas clearly stated that you have
> over-interpreted him.
No. I reiterate things where Andreas has given misleadin
Morio Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Do you believe that anyone in Debian has ever been discriminated against
>> for socio-religious views that had no impact on their ability to work in
>> the project?
>
> Given t
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-09 20:39:20]:
>> 1) You now appear less willing to do so. What has changed?
>
> The GR was intendet to clarify that point.
> However, in a small oppinion poll I found that
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-07 20:09:11]:
>> If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
>> delegates regardless of their wishes?
>
> It would depend on weather I had go
views that had no impact on their ability to work in
the project?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
towards each other. Allowing people to behave as they
wish to has a direct cost to the project)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DPL team members
> to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without
> special privileges, as they see fit.
But surely the point of a team is for people to be able to pick up the
slack if someone can't cope? If you believe that the DPL should still be
a singl
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 20:33]:
>> Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We
>> didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and
>> just
I worked with the team to help it overcome it's
> issues itself, however.
If you were DPL right now, which teams would you consider making formal
delegates regardless of their wishes?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
p to provide
leadership within the team when it became clear that Branden wasn't
providing what you considered to be insufficient leadership?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
os/ubuntu/+specs has the list of current
specifications.
(I reply for information rather than because I think a discussion of the
Ubuntu development process is especially topical or interesting)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
No, I have no idea what was up with that subject.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some time ago before anybody on the team publically admitted
this?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whereas most of what you've been
doing hasn't been publically visible. The DPL team has failed to live up
to several of its claims. Why do you believe that you stand a chance of
winning this year?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:07:46PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Where does this "have to" come from?
>
>>From DFSG:
Please point at a license that has this property. The QPL doesn't appear
to.
--
Matth
at forbid me from distributing a patch
that contains elements of work A and work B when both are released under
the QPL?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
consider it free. If you actually
have a single real license that has the requirement that you're
hypothesising, then please point at it. Otherwise, it seems entirely
practical to produce works that are derived from two separate
patch-clause licensed works.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL P
.
Where does this "have to" come from?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
separate from the Software, such as
patches."
So a patch that contains elements of work 1 and work 2 is perfectly
permissable - the only thing the clause requires is that you distribute
unmodified source code and apply modifications to that. It doesn't state
what form the modifications must
that either the GPL
or BSD were licenses that should be considered non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ork A. That's not realistically a derived
work of B.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pain? Yes. Possible? Yes.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ted
> by the license.
While there's no requirement that copyright notices be present in
Berne convention countries, the universal copyright convention allows
countries to require copyright notices in order to benefit from
copyright protection.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
stating that each binary package must
include a transparent copy. This isn't terribly difficult, it's just
irritating.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
author(s). Please add:
Any post to -private is made with the knowledge that anyone in the world
could, at some later point, become a developer and read that email. I
don't see how this would actually change the situation.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is &qu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:15:22 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - I'm not sure if it insists that the order of signing is consistent
>> with the order of receipt.
>
> Umm, I am not sure I
ose you originally chose.
I /believe/ that there's a replay cache to prevent a naive replay attack
- I'm not sure if it insists that the order of signing is consistent
with the order of receipt.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
one will count. As a
result, you're free to change your mind up until the deadline. Possibly
this should be more widely publicised?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m before making up his mind. This way the decition is
> taken by an elected person, based on the available input from the
> relevant teams.
Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
technical committee.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
e number drops below 12 again.
If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid
situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the
release team because there are already too many architectures. I'm not
massively keen on this - it ends up sounding a bi
I think everyone's
clear about any shortcomings in the way it was reached by now.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
being DPL?
If not elected, I intend to work on everything in my platform anyway. I
would expect this to be harder without the authority that being DPL
lends, but I'd like to try anyway.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
ce that these organizations must meet.
Linux Australia has a significantly better track record in financial
management than SPI has ever had - if the Australian dollar was worth a
little more, I'd consider suggesting we should hand all our cash over to
them...
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTEC
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You've said that the discussion of a new strategy for etch was something
>> that had been on your mind for a while.
>
> Err, afaik I didn't say that, and whether or not I did, it certainly
> wasn't the cas
project and I think this applies to everyone. On
> the other hand, I don't care if someone if the best developer ever,
> if he cannot get along with anyone in the project, imho, he does not
> belong here.
If their inability to get along with anyone in the project doesn't
impa
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I think this is interesting from a social point of view. Would
>> increasing the number of teams inside the project increase the number of
>> incidents like this? If so, would people become more or less tolerant of
>> t
le being able to remain in tasks when they're unfit to
do so, then elect a DPL who's willing to remove them. But remember that
Debian isn't a popularity contest - people shouldn't be fired just
because people don't like them.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
le with their employer). The same thing
> goes for the invitation, which should have been more public.
> Both decisions were influenced mostly by empathy with individual's
> circumstance. This (need for individual confidentiality vs project
> openness) is a hard thing to do right and is where we need to pay
> even more attention next time.
If you had the opportunity to go back two months and organise this
meeting again, what concrete differences would you make?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/
solid technical discussion going on. We do have problems, and this is
(so far) the best proposal we've had for dealing with them. I just wish
it had been reached somewhat differently.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he ensuing fallout) arising
in future?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ver, I wasn't sent
a copy of the updated one.
[2] The text I was asked to agree to contained "the crafting of a
release plan for etch", not "the crafting of a prospective release plan
for etch", so the degree to which they've been presented as conclusions
has be
ple that can do something about it. In the
NEW queue case, that would be the ftp-masters. Having a pre-chosen DPL
team doesn't reduce the number of people that you have to talk to.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d by having a pre-selected team of
people rather than appointing delegates on an as-needed basis?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
changes to the current make-up of the committee.
There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to change the current
committee. If people feel that they make bad decisions, then that might
change.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
contract. But yes, I know
what you mean - most users do view Debian as being main, non-free and
contrib.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
me
out as more of a Gonzo.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this. How can anyone be required to sign such a
document, and what would the consequences of them failing to sign it be?
Is this constitutionally mandated?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ber of non-developers, so I'd be
very interested to hear what they've learned in this respect and
encourage these lessons to be adopted more widely throughout the
project.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ransparency? Why would their meetings be private? What real
benefits does having this team bring to the project?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ss for dealing with this problem, then I'd probably wholeheartedly
endorse it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.02.1=
> 448 +0100]:
>> Debian is run by its developers - the DPL exists in order to
>> ensure that the developers are able to make appropriate decisions,
>>
d to occur
about every 18 months, and are supported for 5 years afterwards. We
can't be expected to offer that level of coverage, but unless we're
offering more than a year people aren't going to be that interested.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
e
that's longer than that. Ubuntu supports each release for 18
months, even though they release every 6 months. Do we have the
resources to do that?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sion. And that is something I am good at.
A 6 month release cycle would not go down well with many users unless we
have a much longer support cycle. How have you ensured that the security
team will be able to support 3 or 4 releases simultaneously?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
sion 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
> discussions affect ftpmaster, I'm pretty reluctant to want to inflict
> them on anyone else.
I&#
er ID license is the only one that I can think of
recently, though I may well have missed some.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e each team member will
have. Would we be electing a team with a DPL as a sort of figurehead, or
will no decision pass unless the DPL agrees with it?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
er a package. I think the social change is
more important, and I think that's something that can happen without
needing to produce new rules.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
into a case-by-case discussion, because I don't
believe it to be interesting or relevant. The DPL's opinion in this
matter should carry no more weight than any other developer's. The DPL's
involvement should be to note that there is a lack of consensus over the
issue and work
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Complaints about NEW can roughly be split into three catagories:
>> 1) It takes too long
>> 2) It isn't happening
>
> These are the same issue: it's a queue, packages uploaded now will be
> processed whe
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been labelled because I fit a similar description to others,
> so why not label debian nazi if there is a nazi DD? I think that
> shows the absurdity of some debian-women contributors.
Could you please provide a pointer to this lab
o the role to deal with communication. That's not something that
could happen overnight, but I think it's the most practical answer.
Currently, this role would appear to fall to the DPL. In future, it
might be worthwhile delegating the role to someone else.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTE
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given the relatively short period of time that debian-women has existed,
>> it's unsurprising that most of their work is still located on their own
>> site rather than integra
quot;The NEW issue has nothing to do with communication"
is difficult unless you clarify what "The NEW issue" is. Communication
isn't about providing information - it's about providing the information
that people need.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he entire thing. A group of people
have started working on something that they think needs changing. If you
don't like their goals or the way that they're going about them, then
try voicing those opinions in a somewhat more reasonable way.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm. I meant to send this to -vote - sorry about that.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * I had recently post a message to debian-project[1] suggesting that we
>> could plan structural changes in Debian, I mea
then it ought to be
discussed with them. If they're unwilling to have that discussion, then
the DPL's involvement may be justifiable.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 13:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical
>> decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution.
>> However, I will w
do so, then it should be the DPL's
responsibility to ensure that that information is passed on.
Debian is run by its developers - the DPL exists in order to ensure that
the developers are able to make appropriate decisions, not to make those
decisions himself.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROT
al decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest
of the project.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I declare my intention to stand for the post of DPL.
K thx bye, love:
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
e reasonable.
That's a desperately impressive non-sequitur. How do you go from "I
won't tell you stuff in private if you use it to attack other people" to
"Our secret plan was to avoid communicating about adm64 and we'd have
gotten away with it to if it hadn't been fo
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
>>
>> What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
>> inc
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
