This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> The position I'm trying to defend is very simple: We have the Social
> Contract for a reason, it is our promise to the free software
> community. And if the Release Team (or any team) feels we can't stand
> to our promises, and needs to override
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:34:15PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
> As you seem to have conceded (for the purposes of this resolution) to
> seeing the DFSG-violations fixed post-Lenny and with the linux-2.6 (with
> Ben's work) and hopefully also glibc and portmap (now that Sun people
> seem to be
[Robert Millan]
> How about:
>
> "... may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> moving packages in distributions other than "unstable" or "experimental" may
> still require approval by the corresponding Release Team and/or by the
> FTP Archive Team)"
That does not address my
Hi Robert,
Robert Millan wrote:
> I don't think NEW is the problem here. The question, from my POV, is that
> as developer I don't feel I am empowered to move a package to non-free
> without permission from the maintainers, even if it is obviously infringing
> on the Social Contract.
For all but
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [me]
> > > Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
> > > any time something is added to non-free?
>
> [Robert Millan]
> > ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are rough
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
> > the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
>
> How about dropping the GR and
[me]
> > Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
> > any time something is added to non-free?
[Robert Millan]
> ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
> the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
> the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
How about dropping the GR and continuing with the current process,
where anybody can file a RC bug aga
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:27:24AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
> any time something is added to non-free? I suspect the ftpmasters will
> not be enthusiastic about complying with a GR that requires a mechanism
> to bypa
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> to bypass the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
> much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
Well, as per constitution 2.1.1 a GR cannot force any project member
or delegate to do something, so if the GR means wh
[Robert Millan]
> Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
> problem in long-term.
Speaking of enforceability --
Your GR will have the effect of removing linux-2.6 from unstable. Only
it won't, because we all know that will not actually happen. Thus th
Robert Millan wrote:
[...] the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
Why not remove the package from testing, same as any other release
critical bug?
Or if you are worried about unstable containing non-DFSG stuff, why not
remo
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers
Is this GR trying to force the dak developers to implement a way for
this to be done without any intervention from the ftpmasters, or is
this just shorthand for "any developer may make a
Hi,
I propose the following General Resolution. If you wish to second only one
or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
can account them separately.
Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
problem in long-term. There
14 matches
Mail list logo
