On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
> think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
> needed, but don't go an active way of solving something which might
> be an issue. Instea
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
> > think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
> > needed, but d
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:15:00AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >What do you think about such a proposal?
>
> I'd be quite worried about the blocking potential of such a move,
> actually. One of the reasons that Debian scales so well is that *most*
> of the work we do day-to-day does not depend
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:31:34AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> existing maintainers to join it. In the end I don't have a problem
>> if this team is somewhat bigger. What I think is valueable about such a
>> team is the effects that come from bee
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Turning this into a question for you: why the core-team you are
> > imagining as a backup should not become the actual maintenance team
> > instead of staying in the backup role?
> .. to make the core-team the actual maintenance team and asking the
Dear Steve and Luk,
So, you are running in tandem. How do you plan to organize the sharing
of the DPL workload?
Will Steve be The DPL, with Luk only helping on some matters? Or will it
be more like 50/50? For example, who will receive lea...@debian.org?
Luk, you are already a very busy DD, with
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > ===
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project, whi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Sure. Its no criticism targetted at the PTS maintainers. Its not
> even criticism at all. Its just noteing that it got the attention of
> someone, but it seems it didn't get the attention of the
> project. Which would be quiet im
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian,
>
> What does this mean? Paying someone to "evaluate" debian? I don't get
> this ...
As I understand it, charities currently pick their operating system by
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> What's your opinion on membership procedures?
>
> Last year there were some rough proposals for how to change the
> membership procedures. It started with Joerg's proposal, but other
> people suggested their own kinds of changes, in
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> As I understand it, charities currently pick their operating system
> by either doing an independent evaluation (an old guide of that sort
> of style from when I last worked for a non-profit is at
> http://www.volresource.org.uk/swit/select.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 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
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Dear Steve and Luk,
Hi Lucas
> So, you are running in tandem. How do you plan to organize the sharing
> of the DPL workload?
I think we'll try to spread the workload depending on the circumstances
of the moment.
> Will Steve be The DPL, with Luk only helping on some matt
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
> change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
> I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
> requirements from 31 to 30, which is wha
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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?
Having such a discussion is really interesting, I would not limit it
to -vote and DP
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
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
> will fix t
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:51:37PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >
> >PROPOSAL START
> >
> >General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> >P
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
> will fi
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While ove
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> > clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> > changes w
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 00:56 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In terms of the right to vote in Debian, I'm thinking that does need
> to be earned by an obvious long-term commitment to the project. Maybe
> a minimum count of packages uploaded, or strings translated, or web
> pages written over a 1-year
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, t
On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutio
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Since nobody sponsored it yet,
Actually, someone did, but:
> I'm amending it to fix:
> s/arised/arisen/
> s/those years/the years/
Under A.1.6, you can fix spelling and grammar without having to re-solicit
seconds.
--
Steve Lang
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> >
> > PROPOSAL START
> > =
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 00:56 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> In terms of the right to vote in Debian, I'm thinking that does need
>> to be earned by an obvious long-term commitment to the project. Maybe
>> a minimum count of packages u
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
> This theory does not match the project history in any way.
> vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
> level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
>
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 80
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
> > 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
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
> 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 poin
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
> thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
> ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
> recognized as an important viewpoint to take into cons
31 matches
Mail list logo
