Bas Wijnen writes:
...
>> (or fighting "bitter rearguard battles").
>
> This may be a language issue, but I have been thinking about what a
> "rearguard battle" is, and I can't think of any way Ian can possibly be
> talking about himself. The rear guard is on the back. This must mean
> that some
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war",
"rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
coupling]"):
> [some things]
Bdale, I completely understand why you are upset and angry over what I
Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard
battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]"):
> [stuff]
Bas, thank you very much for your support, but I'm afraid I really
have to dis
Bas Wijnen writes:
> First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words.
Ditto. In my experience, nothing is gained when we allow emotion to get
the better of reason in our involvement with Debian.
> On the other hand, that means my replies are about several posts, and
> are rather long.
I ch
First of all, thank you Sam for your calming words. Have you considered
running for DPL by any chance? ;-)
Like Sam, I will not post a lot here. One reason is that I don't want
to spawn a flamewar; the other that I want to let messages sink in
before replying to them. I encourage everyone else
Sam Hartman wrote:
> Matthew> Josh Triplett writes:
> >> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical
> >> committee?
> >>
> >> Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much eas
Hi Sam,
I surely hate noone here, thank you for your calming and insightful words.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm
definitely slowing down responses.
Replying to two messages.
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Josh Triplett writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> > Wha
Josh Triplett writes:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
>
> Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
> handling this. See the "Maximum term for tech ctte membe
Le lundi 10 novembre 2014 à 09:44 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> I think you forget the option that (I think) is the least personal
> damaging one:
>
> Option 0: Ask the member to consider stepping back himself.
This has already been asked, several times, by myself and by other
people.
I t
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
handling this. See the "Maximum term for tech ctte members" thread.
Such a proposal would
> "Aigars" == Aigars Mahinovs writes:
Aigars> If you do not liek where Ian is coming from with his point of view -
Aigars> do not argue with him. Argue with other people. Or, better yet,
argue
Aigars> with the facts.
This sounds awfully similar to "Don't feed the trolls", and we
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01:46AM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
> > thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
> > pattern of behavior over the las
On 10 November 2014 07:14, Josh Triplett wrote:
> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
> thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
> pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing.
I do find it quite alarming that
On 10 November 2014 10:42, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi Bas,
>
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> 17:34:12 Diziet: I don't think that stating that we
>>> don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on
>>> 17:34:25 Diziet: at l
Hi Andrey,
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
> Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
> Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC power
Hi Bas,
Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 17:34:12 Diziet: I don't think that stating that we
>> don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on
>> 17:34:25 Diziet: at least, not while the GR is
>> happening which seems to directl
Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to
here on the list today in response to my message this morning.
I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to
respond on-list.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be
reasoned but
Bas Wijnen writes:
> The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times.
> That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long as he isn't
> insulting people.
He has certainly insulted me.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/06/msg00040.html
If you don't know me ve
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical
> committee?
An alternative to picking on one committee member would be to disband
the current committee entirely, with an explicit rider stating that the
action should not
> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes:
Josh> For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start
this
Josh> thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
Josh> pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of
Josh> changing.
Regard
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4).
Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this
thread solely because of a single IRC log, but rather because of a
pattern of behavior over the last year that shows no signs of changing.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 01:48:42AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 1
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
> avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
> Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
>
> Thank you for calling atten
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which su
[Please CC me on replies.]
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sur
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
The "we are currently skeptical" wor
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to
avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.]
Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war.
>
> /Sune
>
> [17:35:34]
> http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.lo
On 2014-11-09, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
> it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
> that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
> best for Debian, and that their opinions sho
Hi,
Holger Levsen:
> After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again […]
> […]
> I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian […]
Everybody please take a step back and read
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/11/msg2.html
before continuing th
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 15:08, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We have had scenarios in Debian where maintainers, tired of receiving
> bug reports about problems on a specific architecture, decided to drop
> support for that architecture from their packages.
True. Yet we didn't forbid them by GR to do so becau
On 09/11/14 at 14:42 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
> > system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
> > prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
>
Hi,
On 09.11.2014 13:36, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> With Choice 3, a package maintainer can decide to support only an init
> system that isn't the default if the maintainer considers it a
> prerequisite for its proper operation and no patches
> or other derived works exist in order to support other i
On 11/09/2014 at 05:26 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
>> I'd assume he was referring to:
>>
>>> If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if
>>> those who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective
>>> d
On 09/11/14 at 13:16 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> I too value standardization. Judging by decisions taking by other large
> distributions and upstream development, a fifth, "only support systemd
> as init system" would thus have been the most sensible option. But for
> political reasons that's
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
> But actually, I dislike (3) even more, for the reasons detailed in the
> subthread at [4]. I value standardization a lot. I think that this is
> one of the main things that Debian provides. (3) is a big step towards
> diminis
Hi Holger,
(I'm only answering the first part of your mail -- I don't think that
it's fair to alienate Ian and the supporters of Choice 1. I believe
that they are all acting in good faith, pushing for what they think is
best for Debian, and that their opinions should be respected.)
Here is how I
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I'd assume he was referring to:
>
> > If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those
> > who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision.
>
> > If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rear
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:24:16AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian, someone who
> >perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte decision (instead of accepting
> >a group decission of a group which he is part of) and thus deciced to beat
> >Debi
Hi again,
after re-reading these threads to find that message-id I missed to reply to
this:
On Sonntag, 9. November 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> You can't decide such a thing single-handedly. Are you also disgusted
> that 11 people seconded Ian's proposal?
no, not at all.
cheers,
Holger
Hi Jakub,
On Sonntag, 9. November 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I'm afraid that if you want to conduct a personal attack on Ian, you
> have to try a little bit harder.
I'm not interested in personally attacking Ian. At all. But I do think his
_behaviour_ has been quite unacceptable and also I think
Hi Holger,
I'm afraid that if you want to conduct a personal attack on Ian, you
have to try a little bit harder.
* Holger Levsen , 2014-11-08, 20:46:
I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian, someone
who perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte decision (instead of
acce
Get real man. This is a very important issue in the whole free software
world. Freedom of choice or not, especially for *nix*.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.deb
Hi,
After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again, I came
to the conclusion that I wanted to publically withdraw my support for Choice 2,
after re-reading it several times and sleeping over it.
So why do I dislike choice 2?
Choice 2 has two paragraphs I disagree with, rat
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@)
>
> Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
> > for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by t
Hi,
Philip Hands:
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That CfV should have had a Reply-To: line …
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Neil,
Philip Hands writes:
>> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
...
Oh, oops! maybe you should set the Reply-To for bears of little brain
like me.
I'm sure you probably do so normally, and that having to reis
Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@)
Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit :
> The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
> for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
> secretary, is appended below.
From what I can see [0], the public
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
> [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system
> [ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not
> mandatory
> [ 2 ] Choice 3:
Note: this is a re-issued CfV, please use the ballot below or your vote
will be rejected. Voting is now open.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, November 5th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, November 18th, 2014
The following ballot is for voting
50 matches
Mail list logo
