On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> [1] He made another mistake in DFSG release policy in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00451.html
> but then corrected himself soon after. We're all human.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, I don't have any ability to delegate things to the developer body
> > as a whole. But the developer body as a whole do have the ability to
> > overrule both myself (4.1.3) and the tech c
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway. Language has no effect on release timing. Release policies have
> > an effect on release timing. The following release policies are possible:
> > * All programs in main must be D
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
> > but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
> > feel comfortable with.
>
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
> or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
> the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
> developers could settle the issue by a GR.
D
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Because there is some confusion over what the actual effects of the
> various options in GR 2004_003 are, I have undertaken an analysis.
Walter, your analysis is useful but does not seem to be neutral;
> Choice 1 (Postpone until Sep
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It makes the difference that if such a GR wins the vote, we will not
> > have to wait for the tech ctte. Some people, including me, would find
> > that highly desirable.
> What makes
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Obviously, a proposal:
> > "We declare the RM's statement in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be overruled"
> > is not sufficient.
> No, it's not: you need to overrule things with a _new_ decision, not with
> absolutely nothing.
The proposals that are on the
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I don't really think any GR would avoid me wanting the tech ctte's
> > explicit decision.
>
> Would you please make up your mind: Will you, or will you not, allow
> yourself to be over
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> but I'm not going to do your thinking for you. This is _your_ decision
> to make.
Nobody is claiming otherwise.
> Want the exception right now, no changes to the social contract necessary?
> Convince the tech ctte, or overrule them by GR.
That is exa
Scripsit Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:39:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Would you please make up your mind: Will you, or will you not, allow
> > yourself to be overruled by a GR, without the tech ctte's involvement?
> Isn't the constitution clear on this
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In this particular case, the delegate refuses to share his
> interpretation of the proposed texts, meaning that the developers have
> no idea about which of the proposals will actually cause him to
> consider himself overridden.
Th
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> It should be, but it a matter of natural language (hence
> interpretation) whether each of the proposed General Resolution
> actually constitute Overriding. The Delegate in question has to decide
> for himself whether the language i
http://usapills.info/sv/index.php?pid=eph2176
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:45:40PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > Could you explain why this paragraph in proposal E is
> > insufficient?
> >
> > " In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that
> > release current
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is good enough that I'm now thinking I don't need to propose a
> > new GR.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:51:40PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> Have you seen Bill Alombert's objections [1] to Manoj's proposal? It
> seems that Mano
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >-
> >
> > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> >
> > "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> > of our archive (The
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >-
> > >
> > > We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
> > >
> > > "On the question on
Hamish Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Because there is some confusion over what the actual effects of the
> > various options in GR 2004_003 are, I have undertaken an analysis.
>
> Walter, your analysis is useful but does not seem to be neutral;
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:44:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Among other things, your view on it is an important piece of information.
> > No, it's not.
> Yes it is. You are the official that the proposals aim to overrule. It
> is important whether or not you would consider the proposed
Scripsit Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The Delegate in question has to decide for himself whether the
> > language in the GR Overrides his decision or not.
> No, I don't think it works like that. Anthony is not the one who
Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:44:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Yes it is. You are the official that the proposals aim to overrule. It
> > is important whether or not you would consider the proposed text as an
> > actual decision to overrule you.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> How about:
>
> We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
>
> "On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
> of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
> release code-named
23 matches
Mail list logo
