On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
> >
> > There are none, I agree.
> >
> > I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
> > Mai
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 11:56:26PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Wichert hasn't failed for that and this is not Wicherts fault. Don't
> make it one. Wichert, Dwarf and myself were discussing things recently.
Great. This whole new maintainer stuff gets us lots of bad publicity. Don't
you think i
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wichert hasn't failed for that and this is not Wicherts fault. Don't
> make it one. Wichert, Dwarf and myself were discussing things recently.
OK. Whose fault is it? What were the result of the discussions?
Thomas
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
>
> There are none, I agree.
>
> I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
> Maintainer. This is the biggest failure of his tenure thus far,
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the reasons for ever not letting new maintainers in?
There are none, I agree.
I'm very disappointed that Wichert has failed to reopen New
Maintainer. This is the biggest failure of his tenure thus far, IMHO.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTEC
Edward Brocklesby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> Hi,
>
> The attached document details a modification written by Zephaniah E. Hull
> and I, which I am proposing as an amendment to the Debian Constitution.
> This hopefully solves one or two problems we have identified in Debian,
> namely cl
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 07:53:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> Well, maybe because all but 1 people tried to help technically
> instead of working on the issue on the proper stage. (sorry, can't
> express it like I want).
Assuming there are issues beside the technical one, something I am not
> > But the number of people who volunteered to join the NM team was
> > substantial, and yet all were turned down by the then team. However,
> > I think feelings within the project and probably the project itself
> > would have been far more badly hurt by resorting to a vote than by
> > waiting f
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:52:17PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Edward Brocklesby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Please offer sensible, well considered, useful comments. Replies from
> > rude, abrasive people (you know who you are) will be ignored.
>
> How very diplomatic of you ;-)
>
> >
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > If you don't like the fact that the Delegates have chosen to close
> > new-maintainer, and are too lazy to actually get off your arse to do
> > the job yourself but not too lazy to make a fuss, then you can use
> [...]
>
> But the number of people who volunteered to join t
On 01-Nov-99, 01:05 (CST), Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This doesn't do anything to address the real issue (getting
> > new-maintainers back on its feet), and only seems to give people something
> > to point to when whining about how everyone else isn't doin
> If you don't like the fact that the Delegates have chosen to close
> new-maintainer, and are too lazy to actually get off your arse to do
> the job yourself but not too lazy to make a fuss, then you can use
[...]
But the number of people who volunteered to join the NM team was
substantial, and y
Edward Brocklesby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please offer sensible, well considered, useful comments. Replies from
> rude, abrasive people (you know who you are) will be ignored.
How very diplomatic of you ;-)
> 3. The Project Leader's Delegate(s) may decide not to admit any new
>
> The attached document details a modification written by Zephaniah E. Hull
> and I, which I am proposing as an amendment to the Debian Constitution.
> This hopefully solves one or two problems we have identified in Debian,
> namely closed teams (new-maintainer, ftp maint etc.), stagnation of these
Anthony Towns wrote:
> This doesn't do anything to address the real issue (getting
> new-maintainers back on its feet), and only seems to give people something
> to point to when whining about how everyone else isn't doing everything
> for them.
Agreed.
Regards,
Joey
--
A mathematician
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 03:09:31PM +, Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> This hopefully solves one or two problems we have identified in Debian,
> namely closed teams (new-maintainer, ftp maint etc.), stagnation of these
> teams, and the current issue of new maintainer being closed.
A proposal never s
Edward, I can understand your frustration at these various places, but it
seems that asking for a 3:1 majority is similar to "we don't ever want this
to happen, but lets look like we should allow it."
Perhaps if the ratio were to be lower, 2:1, or replaced with "consensus"
which appears in other p
17 matches
Mail list logo
