On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which can and
> > shou
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> > I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
>
> You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
Which indeed does not change my statement. All this (our De
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instanc
[Matthew Garrett]
> Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
> technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the posit
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
> >infrastructure,
> >not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
>
> This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
personally more in favour of mips* as release archs than some others
because you're doing such a good job.
Che
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > > indepen
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
> It is probably better to allow the DPL to veto the inclusion, and
> document that he is required to ask the porters, the ftp masters and
> the release team before making up his
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > > A) Do
[Sven Luther]
>> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
>> be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
> people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocrati
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
> This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
> 90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
> hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
> remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I probably
wouldn't allow an MMIX port into the archive even if it sat up a
> So drop this bullshit veto thing. There is no reason to have this.
I read this thread very occasionnally and I usually pick up posts my
people I respect for their ability to express their opinions quietly
and without the need of flaming.
Hence, I have to admit that I'm really surprised by this
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > A) Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be
> > >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> answered]
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes
> > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to
> > 2 or 3?
>
> - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while slower,
> low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain application
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being
>> > raised and answered]
>>
>> > > * Why is the pe
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> > answered]
>
> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restr
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
> ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
> ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be released with sarge), there is a
> general feeling that twelve architectures
[cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
answered]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which
also sprach Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.15.0448 +0100]:
> 2) Secondly, I understand the writeup Steve posted to be a proposal,
Apparently, a lot of people did not. I also see a difference between
discussing possible solutions (somewhere else than a Wiki) or
voting between alterna
As a DPL candidate, and as a signatory to the document Steve Langasek
posted to debian-devel-announce[1], I reckoned it would be useful to post
some detailed thoughts of my own.
1) First and foremost, I'd like to thank the attendees, the organizer
(Andreas Schuldei) and the NUUG Foundation for mak
25 matches
Mail list logo
