* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 06:47]:
> > I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the
> > project leader.
> The Debian Project Leader is empowered by clause 5.1.6 of the Debian
> Constitution[2] to seat and remove members of the Technical
> Committee.
>
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 06:47]:
> > I wonder why reviving the CTTE has to wait until you become the
> > project leader.
> The Debian Project Leader is empowered by clause 5.1.6 of the Debian
> Constitution[2] to seat and remove members of the Technical
> Committee.
>
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:49:10AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Out of curiosity, do you plan to only formally make the people working
> in these departments delegates?
I plan to extend formal delegate status to everyone currently serving in
those roles.
It is possible that one or more of those
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:49:10AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Out of curiosity, do you plan to only formally make the people working
> in these departments delegates?
I plan to extend formal delegate status to everyone currently serving in
those roles.
It is possible that one or more of those
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think the following roles should be formally delegated:
> FTP Archives
> Release Manager
> Release Manager for "stable"
> Bug Tracking System
> Mailing Lists Administration
> Mailing Lists Archives
> New Maintainers
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think the following roles should be formally delegated:
> FTP Archives
> Release Manager
> Release Manager for "stable"
> Bug Tracking System
> Mailing Lists Administration
> Mailing Lists Archives
> New Maintainers
* Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 17:53]:
> However, as far as I recall, no DPL has ever publicly appointed
> delegates to positions.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200305/msg5.html
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 17:53]:
> However, as far as I recall, no DPL has ever publicly appointed
> delegates to positions.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200305/msg5.html
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCR
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
> Would you change this?
Since I am not a candidate, I cannot answer the question as
asked. However, I can add a data point. When the draft constitution
was first
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
> Would you change this?
Since I am not a candidate, I cannot answer the question as
asked. However, I can add a data point. When the draft constitution
was first
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:48:01PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
Formally speaking, I guess only two are. The Release Manager, and the
Hardware Donations Manager.
Martin can probably tell us if he's made other d
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:16:20PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> No, I am extremely disappointed with the role of the Technical
> Committee. I actually talked to Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> about this at FOSDEM two weeks ago. While I think that we should in
> most cases come to a con
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:48:01PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
Formally speaking, I guess only two are. The Release Manager, and the
Hardware Donations Manager.
Martin can probably tell us if he's made other d
* Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 16:48]:
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or
> why not? Would you change this?
Before answering this mail, I talked to Pasc on IRC for a while. Pasc
was added as a listmaster during my term as DPL, and has done
excel
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
> Would you change this?
None of them, because none includes my tama, who is an aspiring
conqueror, a wanna-be ruler of the world (who wants to start with Debian
for some strange reason... maybe because Debian is the on
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:16:20PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> No, I am extremely disappointed with the role of the Technical
> Committee. I actually talked to Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> about this at FOSDEM two weeks ago. While I think that we should in
> most cases come to a con
* Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 16:48]:
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or
> why not? Would you change this?
Before answering this mail, I talked to Pasc on IRC for a while. Pasc
was added as a listmaster during my term as DPL, and has done
excel
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
> Would you change this?
None of them, because none includes my tama, who is an aspiring
conqueror, a wanna-be ruler of the world (who wants to start with Debian
for some strange reason... maybe because Debian is the on
Hi,
Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
Would you change this?
Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the project?
Cheers,
Pasc
[1]: http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
--
Pascal Hakim
Hi,
Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
Would you change this?
Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the project?
Cheers,
Pasc
[1]: http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
--
Pascal Hakim
20 matches
Mail list logo
