Hi,
I guess the idea is that (a) new member(s) will "bring along"/"make happen"
the structures & procedures which seem to be missing...
Which is not totally far out - at least if this is communicated to the new
member(s) ;-)
More people alone won't change anything. But wasn't that clear from t
* Bdale Garbee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080418 19:18]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
>
> > Obviously that means those people have rather less time on their
> > hands. I think this is the main cause of the TC's current
> > largely-wedged state
>
> I don't personally think that the TC suff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Obviously that means those people have rather less time on their
> hands. I think this is the main cause of the TC's current
> largely-wedged state
I don't personally think that the TC suffers primarily from members
having limited time to devote. I thi
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting
> people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further
> consideration. What is "this type"? Probably we need to re-sort
> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
> to decide
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
>> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the
>> tech-ctte needs to make decisions for the project th
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
>> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the
>> tech-ctte needs to make decisions for the project th
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the tech-ctte
> needs to make decisions for the project that the project can then
> implement. Yes, thi
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the tech-ctte
> needs to make decisions for the project that the project can then
> implement. Yes, thi
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:06PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wordpress;dist=stable
> > shows zero RC bugs, and I found two DSA-s for it, 1258 and 1502.
> > The remaining
Hi,
On Friday 04 April 2008 08:12, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Thanks for clarifying. Sounds sensible to me, but then I think we should
> > also drop wordpress from etch.
> What would that help?
a.) it would be a clear statement, that we drop support for it. Currently it's
wishi-washi.
b.) people
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wordpress;dist=stable
> shows zero RC bugs, and I found two DSA-s for it, 1258 and 1502.
> The remaining filed bugs which relate to security are explicitly marked by
> the
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:51:06PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
>
> I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
> repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
I don't quite see the point of this...
http://b
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2008 23:51, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
> > I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
> > repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
>
> Thanks for
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> What that means is that it is very important that the TC has the very
>> best people on it. But it is a fact of life - particularly in a
>> volunteer project like Debian - that the best peopl
Hi Moritz,
On Thursday 03 April 2008 23:51, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
> I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
> repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
Thanks for clarifying. Sounds sensible to me, bu
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
>> > > as well, I no longer care.
>> > Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's
>> > keep it" -> I don't understand.
Of course it's meant ironic (for the fi
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What that means is that it is very important that the TC has the very
> best people on it. But it is a fact of life - particularly in a
> volunteer project like Debian - that the best people are often the
> very same people who are doi
Martín Ferrari writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Ok, I was thinking and speaking about limiting hats in a context of
> doing it project-wise, not only to the ctte. Sorry for the confusion.
The TC is in fact the very worst place to be thinking about limiting
the numb
ps is not the worst, surely
> > it's not the only one. Concentration of power and not allowing new
> > people are more important in my POV.
>
> That would be a project wide issue, and should not be termed
> "Technical committee resolution". As for as concentra
is not the worst, surely
> it's not the only one. Concentration of power and not allowing new
> people are more important in my POV.
That would be a project wide issue, and should not be termed
"Technical committee resolution". As for as concentration of powers
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it
>
> Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor
> for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats. There a
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:42:05 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You are mistaken. I should have included more of the quote, where you
> definately talk about speed. Here is the entire paragraph:
> Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good
> predictor for perfor
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> sai
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see any
Ian Jackson wrote:
> That's a nice idea but if a problem with the TC is that the decisions
> are too poor, reducing the number of people who review those decisions
> seems like a bad idea.
One thing that I'm feeling is that if a technical decision comes down to
a vote by a committe, there's often
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like this should be
> made by polling the suers (not a vote -- polling them for opinions
> _and_ reasons.
>
> The TC would have been equall
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
> > were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
> > problem with TC decisions being ignore
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> > propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> > conclu
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which people
> were perfor
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:13:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> > limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
> > mig
Hi,
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 11:09, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > [wordpress]
> > > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > > as well, I no longer care.
> > Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's
> > keep it" -> I don't understand.
> Maybe it's
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> [wordpress]
> > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > as well, I no longer care.
>
> Hu?
>
> Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
> it"
Hi,
On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[wordpress]
> FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> as well, I no longer care.
Hu?
Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
it" -> I don't understand.
regards,
H
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it
> might have on ones performance. As examples I think that it would be
> reasona
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:28:53 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the
>> > same committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately,
>> > for your own sake, certainly not mine...
>>
>> Err, is that some kind of a
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> > where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> > particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> > technica
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > better job of them
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:17:14 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > than to keep arguing subtle points about judgement.
>>
>> Again, your description of your previous posts seems somewhat more
>> flattering than the p
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project
>> > due Clint's law of pointl
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tuesday 1 April 2008 00:18, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I agree that the stable security team should no longer be responsible
> > for the wordpress package,[1]
> [...]
> > 1: Though I must admit that it's not clear to me why
> > http://packages.qa.debia
On Tuesday 1 April 2008 00:18, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I agree that the stable security team should no longer be responsible
> for the wordpress package,[1]
[...]
> 1: Though I must admit that it's not clear to me why
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wordpress/news/20080306T195216Z.html
> hasn't be
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> By bringing an issue to the tech ctte, both sides of the issue have
> to give up some control, and thus reposibility. So in this case it's
> not just wordpresses's maintenance, but also the security support
> work that the security team would notmally handle
Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Well, just to pick an example, if the TC had chosen you to deal with
>> the wordpress-in-stable issue, and you had personally decided it
>> needed to be in stable, and had done whatever work was initially
>> needed to get it into stable with security support, you'd still be
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Well, just to pick an example, if the TC had chosen you to deal with
> > the wordpress-in-stable issue, and you had personally decided it
> > needed to be in stable, and had done whatever work was initially
> > needed to get it into s
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project due
> > Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...]
>
> I feel that the above personalisation of argument is u
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we
> > could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person
> > without any serious problems.
>
>
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > than to keep arguing subtle points about judgement.
>
> Again, your description of your previous posts seems somewhat
> more flattering than the posts themselves. Subtle points of judgement
> while continuing to hecto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jacobowitz) writes:
> I also think it's an excellent idea. It gives a rotating source of
> follow-through, instead of relying on one or two members of the
> group who feel differently about the group's obligations to end up
> doing the follow-through (or dropping it and
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:39AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well I'm happy at least one person doesn't think it's a lame-brained
> idea or too much to ask. I wasn't sure how it would be recieved.
I also think it's an excellent idea. It gives a rotating source of
follow-through, instead of relyin
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:41:44 +0100, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:45:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
> I was hoping for the best, but expecting the worst - I expected a
> point-by-point reply but I was hoping that I wouldn't see one
> because I t
Hey Joey,
On Saturday 29 March 2008 06:06, Joey Hess wrote:
> (FWIW, I obviously did listen to users to a certian extent when making
> this decision, and since I reluctantly "own" the issue, I continue to
> have to listen to users as well as try to keep up with things like kde
> 4, to make sure th
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:45:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
I was hoping for the best, but expecting the worst - I expected a
point-by-point reply but I was hoping that I wouldn't see one
because I thought that you would see that I was just trying to explain
the two opposing takes of
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well, just to pick an example, if the TC had chosen you to deal with
> the wordpress-in-stable issue, and you had personally decided it
> needed to be in stable, and had done whatever work was initially
> needed to get it into stable with security support, yo
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:37:29 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
> >>gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
>
> As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This does somewhat resonate. But the experiment where we
> decided to hand over an issue to one member who took ownership of the
> issue did not seem to have resulted in a very different outcome --
> perhaps because we ultimately did come back to a vote.
Whic
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:27:35 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
>> were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
>> problem with TC decisions being ignored.
> The TC is the deci
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:07:15 +0100, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Any tech ctte member worth their salt would be involved in Debian
>> >> beyond maintaining packages (if for nothing else to demonstrate
>> >> they ar
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:37:29 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Hi, I'm Joey Hess and I decided that Debian's default desktop is
>>gnome. How was I able to make this decision? DamnifIknow.
As RMS would say on emacs-dev; a decision like this should be
made by polling the s
Clint Adams wrote:
> No, I would argue that a portion of its membership is trying to rush
> and make decisions far too quickly.
I've never been directly involved in an issue being brought to the TC,
but every time I've seen it considered, or considered doing it myself,
the glacial speed of the TC
Ian Jackson wrote:
> So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
> were wrong, just that they were ignored. There has indeed been a
> problem with TC decisions being ignored.
The TC is the decision-maker of last resort. So if such an issue is
brought to the TC, a decision i
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Any tech ctte member worth their salt would be involved in Debian
> >> beyond maintaining packages (if for nothing else to demonstrate they
> >> are qualified to be tech ctte members).
>
> > I would think that in a project with
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 05:29:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, I am secretary, and work on debian technical policy; you think
>> this is overloaded with too many responsibilities? Any tech ctte
>> member worth
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 05:29:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, I am secretary, and work on debian technical policy; you
> think this is overloaded with too many responsibilities? Any tech ctte
> member worth their salt would be involved in Debian beyond maintaining
> packages
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:38:10 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That is a problem. Perhaps the ctte members are overloaded with other
> responsibilities.
> srivasta: dbnpolicy, debvote, webwml
Not to get in the way of a good rant or anything, the last two
are just because o
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:38:10PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> iwj: dpkgcvs, webwml
+ ubuntu-various until recently
> vorlon: cvs_doc, debian-release, wb-alpha, wb-arm, wb-hppa, wb-i386,
> wb-ia64, wb-m68k, wb-mips, wb-ppc, wb-s390, wb-sparc
+ ubuntu-release
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So I would like to suggest something radical. The decisionmaking
> > processes of the TC should be taken out of the Constitution. Instead,
> > the TC and the D
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:06:41PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> decisions, or not making them fast enough.
No, I would argue that a portion of its membership is trying to rush
and make decisions far too quickly.
> I haven't heard a
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I haven't heard anyone suggest that the TC is actually making wrong
> > decisions.
>
> Well..
>
> #104101: The TCs resolution that kernel sould have VESA fb compiled i
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The causes seem to include:
>
> Isn't the main cause that the Technical Committee is well, a committee?
> (Recall the old saying about many heads and no brain.)
> That see
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 19:06 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> > decisions, or not making them fast enough. I haven't heard anyone
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So I would like to suggest something radical. The decisionmaking
> processes of the TC should be taken out of the Constitution. Instead,
> the TC and the DPL should decide between them a Charter
I agree with the analysis, but the proposed Charter conce
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josip Rodin writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> > Instead, I would suggest to do two things - first, institute a better
> > process, one that doesn't so much focus on intricate stalemates
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> decisions, or not making them fast enough.
Agreed.
> I haven't heard anyone suggest that the TC is actually making wrong
> decisions.
Well..
#104101: The TCs resolution that kernel sould have VESA fb compi
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The causes seem to include:
Isn't the main cause that the Technical Committee is well, a committee?
(Recall the old saying about many heads and no brain.)
That seems to be the core reason for all the problems you listed.
> I think we could fix these by
>
> * Increasing the
On jeu, 2008-03-27 at 19:06 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
> decisions, or not making them fast enough. I haven't heard anyone
> suggest that the TC is actually making wrong decisions.
Even the glibc maintainers?
--
.''`.
: :' :
OK, here is a go at some personal observations:
The main symptom of the TC's brokenness is that it is not making
decisions, or not making them fast enough. I haven't heard anyone
suggest that the TC is actually making wrong decisions.
The causes seem to include:
* Some TC members not being ve
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> Instead, I would suggest to do two things - first, institute a better
> process, one that doesn't so much focus on intricate stalemates (like the
> present 6.2 does), but one that focuses on how to generally get t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28PM +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> there's not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since
> it's almost entirely self-appointed and has no oversight whatsoever [...]
> The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> term,
I'm
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:51:56 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I believe it is closer to the current process than
>> policy-process.(html|sgml|txt), but not yet spot-on. I think if
>> someone were to match it to practice, it would help
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:51:56 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:43:14AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> I also think that the process is not clear to everybody. There is an
>> policy-process.txt, but that doesn't seem to be current. From
>> Anthony's mail abo
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:43:14AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> I also think that the process is not clear to everybody. There is an
>> policy-process.txt, but that doesn't seem to be current.
It is almost completely wrong. It will not be present in the
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:43:14AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I also think that the process is not clear to everybody. There is an
> policy-process.txt, but that doesn't seem to be current. From Anthony's
> mail about the delegation:
Marga put this up:
http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProces
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > or the tech-ctte's involvement in technical improvement of Debian before
> > a conflict exists.
>
> Well, with my Policy delegate hat on, I'd certainly welcome more help in
> that area, bu
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:33 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> But I would really prefer if you would fix your own packages instead of
> relaying on our BSPers.
Actually, I'm very good about uploading fixes for RC bugs promptly. The
bugs I think you are referring to were marked severity "important".
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:33 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I see; so there are no members of the technical committee who have
> > failed twice to vote?
>
> I'm not sure how not voting twice in a row makes someone a less
> important contributor by definition.
I see; so what number do you think w
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:13 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > The creiteria can be more than just voting on issues -- look for
> > > number of emails on threads on a
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080317 00:24]:
>
> On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 00:13 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
> > > On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > The creiteria can be more than just v
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080316 21:01]:
> On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The creiteria can be more than just voting on issues -- look for
> > number of emails on threads on a issue raised, number of emails sent to
> > the bug report, numbe
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> All this replacement in favour of a better person sounds very
> nasty, mean, and likely to be highly subjective to me, and most
> organizations do not often throw people out while they are still
> performing their duties.
Of
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:55:37 -0400, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that currently the project has no way of
> dealing with people who refuse to look at new ways of doing things.
Sure. The project has no way of dealing with people who are
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 00:41 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Oh, and we need a way to deal with the structural problem of questions
> > which get posed to tech-ctte and simply never answered at all. Suppose
> > the tech-ctte fails to answer a question in, oh, three months, the
> > entire members
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:59:06PM -0400, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Would you support a resolution which said that if a tech-ctte member
> failed to contribute, or failed to vote for, say, any two questions,
> they would be replaceable at the discretion of the DPL?
I wouldn't. I don't think t
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri March 14 2008 19:55:37 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I suggest that the best way to have good people on the committee is to
>> have some process by which one person or group of people get to decide
>> that it's time to replace person X with person Y,
On Fri March 14 2008 19:55:37 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I suggest that the best way to have good people on the committee is to
> have some process by which one person or group of people get to decide
> that it's time to replace person X with person Y, and not simply wait
> around for person X to
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 11:40 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not presume to be omniscient. But I believe lack of time,
> which is reflected in lack of contribution to the debate on a topic,
> and, even worse, lack of participation in the voting effort, is
> definitely a root cau
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 23:46 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Neither is the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that
> > because it's likely there are better ways of doing things than the way
> > we're doing things now (ie, "though foo is th
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:05:02 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:46 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
>> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >> And, just to make thin
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:06:07 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Redoing the new blood thing once again is unlikely to have much of an
>> effect, really. I think we need to find some of the root causes of
>> the mal
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:20:47 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:32:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> An alternative is to throw out the member who is youngest.
> No, that would again ensure stagnancy in the group, with the older
> members being perma
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Why is no one responding to the fact that the last ingestion of
> new blood did not solve the problems? [...]
Myself, I have not yet confirmed whether that claim is fact or not,
and if it did not solve the problems, whether it eased the
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
