On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>
> It really sucks that we reached this point. But since proper communication has
> failed horribly to resolve this, I recognise there's no other way.
>
> Seconded.
I hereby withdraw my second to this proposal.
Many developers w
Euh. This ought to be signed, IIRC..
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 06:21:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:27:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >
> > It really sucks that we reached this point. But since proper communication has
> > failed horribly to resolve this, I
I propose an amendment to this GR proposal. The text is completely replaced
by:
===
The Debian project hereby resolves:
- That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by
dpkg as "amd64", hereina
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Rationale:
>
> - Taking technical decisions through voting is not generaly a good
> idea.
Agreed.
> - We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease
> communication between the affected parties.
This
Are you looking for a date in your area?
local young and mature men and women looking for a good time
Just Copy and Paste in your Broswer
onkandy.com/chick.html
lpyjutmyqulowqmdgliyvaa
kkifogvwuwjzxgiyyqdqzjokxlniic
gsatokmoipgjhmxmwtpzqkwgh
omkxxcmvawahceesmrnzugmtfgy
oejybylfljzjyulj
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> ===
> The Debian project hereby resolves:
>
> - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by
> dpkg as "amd64", hereinafter "amd
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:16:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's
> fundamental to the project structure, and written into the
> constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't
> do anything.
Please note the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:12:20PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > - We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease
> > communication between the affected parties.
>
> This GR seems to force communication between ftpmaster and the porters.
I don't put in question the ftp-m
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ===
> > The Debian project hereby resolves:
> >
> > - That the developers in charge for adding the ar
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:16:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's
> > fundamental to the project structure, and written into the
> > constitution. Get used to the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:48:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ===
> > > The Debian project hereby
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:04:02PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I don't think communication will be eased by a GR forcing people to talk
> > to each other.
>
> Well, since everything else has failed, I disagree.
"None of these other things worked, so this one must"? That's not
actually rationa
#include
* Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004, 07:16:04PM]:
> You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's
> fundamental to the project structure, and written into the
> constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't
> do anything.
You can propose what yo
Andrew Suffield, 2004-07-28 22:20:09 +0200 :
> "None of these other things worked, so this one must"? That's not
> actually rational...
Ever heard of the Shadoks? [1] They had this saying: "Keep on trying,
and you'll eventually succeed. Therefore, the more it doesn't work,
the more likely it is
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > ===
>> > The Debian project hereby resolves:
>> >
>> >
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This is a no-op by rule of the constitution.
> Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort.
> You could formulate it as:
> That the developers in charge for adding the arch
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:05:19PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Andrew Suffield, 2004-07-28 22:20:09 +0200 :
>
> > "None of these other things worked, so this one must"? That's not
> > actually rational...
>
> Ever heard of the Shadoks? [1] They had this saying: "Keep on trying,
> and you'll event
17 matches
Mail list logo
