On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:42:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately
> > they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer.
> > However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good
> > id
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:14:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I come to you again, with the same request as i did last year, that
> you lift the censorship you are imposing on me for the duration of
> the DPL campaign on debian-vote.
>
> A DPL campaign is an exercice in democracy, and as thus, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:00:39PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> people. My proposal would be to add a "join a team" entry as one of
> >> the *recommended* step in our join checklists.
>
> I agree that this is a good idea.
Cool.
> > Let me add a second way to implement that default; I've split it
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm very much a fan of people working together on their packages, but
> I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to make teams the default. If
> P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
> much. Oh well... :-)
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:55:39PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 14:55 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> > The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us
> > screaming GR. Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time.
> >
> > Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert wrote:
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Softw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its v
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Do you have any further ideas yourself on where we should spend our
> money?
How about paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian, to
adapt it to meet their needs and deploy it, or to hold meetings to do
that?
I was at a meeting for local voluntary and community
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initi
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > - - - - - - -
> > General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
> >
> > The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU
Hi,
On Montag, 23. März 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi Sven, IMO in the censorship
which censorship
Sven can post his opinion on thousand of sites on the internet, he is not
censored. He is blocked from posting to debian-lists because of the sev
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Do you have any further ideas yourself on where we should spend our
> > money?
> How about
I don't get much of the actual payment you are proposing to do, let's
see.
> paying grants to other charities to evaluate
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> What's your opinion on membership procedures?
Hi Lars, thanks for the question.
> I feel that my approach and Joerg's are pretty much diametrically
> opposed. What's your opinion?
I'm going to respond to this as soon as I complete
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This
> would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary,
> without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could
> you add those to your propo
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:32PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 23. März 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Hi Sven, IMO in the censorship
> which censorship
FWIW, posting it to -vote was a mistake of mine, I overlooked that the
mailing list
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:34AM -0500, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote,
> there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do
> not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not
> active at all. I do no
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can propose amendments
On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10
ma, 2009-03-23 kello 14:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
> I'm going to respond to this as soon as I complete my backlog of
> week-end email. In the meantime I've a request that will help people
> following this discussion. Can you please point us all to your
> proposal, possibly revised wit
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum :
>> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
>> to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
>> is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
>> a high number of seconds might bar them f
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small
[ ACK on the comment that proposals like this one deserve a wider
audience than -vote and the candidates. Given you are asking, here
is my answer, which does not inhibit re-raising the issue elsewhere
of course (hint hint :-)) ]
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wr
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
> number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x > 1). I
> think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
> sink for the project
MJ Ray writes:
> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
effects. I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
if
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 05:48:08PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ ACK on the comment that proposals like this one deserve a wider
> audience than -vote and the candidates. Given you are asking, here
> is my answer, which does not inhibit re-raising the issue elsewhere
> of course (hint
On 11696 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
> I come to you again, with the same request as i did last year, that you
> lift the censorship you are imposing on me for the duration of the DPL
> campaign on debian-vote.
As you obviously do not know the word, lets copy what a dictionary or
also Wikiped
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>MJ Ray writes:
>
>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
>I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>effects.
Russ Allbery wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> effects. I encourage all DDs to not second it
MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> MJ Ray writes:
>>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>> effects. I encourage all DD
MJ Ray writes:
> Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721
> merely a summary of current practice? The statement there seemed
> incomplete in significant ways.
The ftpmaster statement about the AGPL was remarkably explicit.
recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmast
On Mon Mar 23 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
> > modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
> > requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds.
>
> I don't think the secretary currently
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:53:19PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 +
> Sam Kuper wrote:
>
> To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the
> final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if
> something is wrong. If
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> MJ Ray writes:
>
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> e
(Dropping -devel…)
Bill Allombert (23/03/2009):
> Hello developers,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
>
>
> PROPOSAL START
> ===
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> with 804 developers, nearly has much as today slightly over 1000
> de
Hi *,
So looking through the nominations, platforms and the current -vote
threads, I'm left wondering if any of this actually matters. Only two
candidates running, no IRC debate or rebuttals added to the platforms,
and only a couple of topics people have even raised for the candidates
to address?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
>floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
>
>PROPOSAL START
>
>General Resolutions are an impo
On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > PROPOSAL START
> > ===
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> > with 804 devel
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>PROPOSAL START
>
>General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
>Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
>to i
Anthony Towns writes:
> So here's the question, and really the only part of this mail that
> warrants a response:
>
> Over the next twelve months, what single development/activity/project
> is going to improve Debian's value the most? By how much? How will
> you be involved?
Maybe yo
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
I agree. I fail
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
>> P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
>> much. Oh well... :-)
>
>Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
Hi Lars Garbee!
>What
I should probably note here that it looked like Anthony had carefully
phrased his question to apply to the entire project, not just the DPL
candidates, and I replied in that context. If it was intended as a DPL
candidate question, er, never mind. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Hi Patrick,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>
>In Debian we have some packages that are either by default on every
>system or are commonly expected to be found on Debian systems. Such
>tools could be called the core of our system, because they are most
>commonly
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello developers,
> I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> PROPOSAL START
>
48 matches
Mail list logo
