On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - I haven't mentioned it yet publicly (still due to ENOTIME), but I
> still have mixed feelings about the provision that allows "younger"
> ctte members to step down, inhibiting the expiry of "older" members.
> I'm not necessarily a
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'd personally prefer it happening after this vote is concluded
Strong support. And given Lucas' proposed timed trigger, even more so.
Richard
--
Richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Dear all,
as probably most others, I am deeply unhappy with the current state of affairs.
All sides have compelling arguments, which means, to me, that it would
be a benefit to all involved if there was a commonly accepted
solution.
Maybe there's still room for rough consensus[1], however unlikel
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 23:38, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of
>> ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their
>> interpretation of how the DFSG is applied.
>
> I think you are talking about me here. I haven't actually seen any
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 20:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring
> the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how
> the DFSG is applied. You are accusing them of breaking an oath or
> promise, and it's hardly
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:17, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As such, I'm proposing the following position statement as under section
> 4.1.5 of the constitution:
I am not sure if a constitution change is the right way to go. An official
statement and possibly a wall of shame are a
6 matches
Mail list logo
