Hi!
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl schrieb:
Suppose that you would not run for DPL: Who would you vote and why?
Many thanks for your answers. I found them quite interesting, and don't
think anyone (at least not me) will blame you for answering them, by not
answering them ;)
Best regards,
A
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:45:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:10:23PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > At the risk of repeating myself (I already said it in an answer to
> > Charles' GR proposal), these core values are also what all DDs agreed to
> > abide by. If Charles doe
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:09:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Well, last year's election was a bit exceptional in that there was
> almost nothing to do here on -vote. The previous election I participated
> in, OTOH, was one of the most contested elections in Debian's history. I
> guess we're b
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 07:19:43PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > So, I apologize, but I'm not going to disclose my leader vote in public.
>
> I think the better phrasing for the original question would be:
>
> List reasons why the other candidates would make a good
Hello,
those questions are for all candidates. By standardization I mean that
something should be used as default tool unless reasons exist to use
something else (I do not mean that we sould impose something to
everybody for all cases, but it should still be what's used in >95% of the
cases).
1/
Hi Charles,
On Donnerstag, 25. März 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> [...] In order to make it more consensual, there is probably a
> need for making concessions like shortlisting the trusted DDs according to
> some criteria like [...]
What do you mean by "shortlisting"?
cheers,
Holger
s
Le Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:22:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> those questions are for all candidates. By standardization I mean that
> something should be used as default tool unless reasons exist to use
> something else (I do not mean that we sould impose something to
> everybody for al
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-03-25 11:22:36 +0100 :
[...]
> 1/ Do you believe that it's a good move to standardize our packaging tools?
>(example: debhelper is almost standard, quilt is gaining status of the
>standard patch system thanks to the new source format)
Please define “standardize” her
On Wed, Mar 24 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Following the ‘Membership procedures’ GR, discussion on membership
> were started after the Lenny release, but eventually stopped. In this
> thread it was proposed to trust DDs to nominate other members and I
> found the idea very interest
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:22:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> those questions are for all candidates. By standardization I mean that
> something should be used as default tool unless reasons exist to use
> something else (I do not mean that we sould impose something to
> everybody
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:17:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Following the ‘Membership procedures’ GR, discussion on membership
> were started after the Lenny release, but eventually stopped. In this
> thread it was proposed to trust DDs to nominate other members and I
> found t
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Following the ‘Membership procedures’ GR, discussion on membership were
> started
> after the Lenny release, but eventually stopped. In this thread it was
> proposed
> to trust DDs to nominate other members and I found the idea very inter
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 1/ Do you believe that it's a good move to standardize our packaging tools?
> (example: debhelper is almost standard, quilt is gaining status of the
> standard patch system thanks to the new source format)
I do not think that we shoul
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:24:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> After the very painful GR about “Lenny and resolving DFSG violations”,
> discussions started about our voting system, and the fact that it does not
> accomodate well with mixture of supermajority and regular options. Also,
> disagree
Hello,
First of all congrats to all candidates and thanks for stepping up
for doing this task.
Secondly, I was wondering how Debian could make it easier for people
to contribute than other (derivatives and non-derivatives)
distributions. I came up with a really nice draft howto[1] which I
wou
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
> >is less of a burden?
>
> They are not.
I can't accept the premise that we can't do better at this level.
I managed to get my own project through the end (it's deployed,
On Thu Mar 25 17:38, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I don't like the underlying intuition that this entails, namely that the
> GR proposer is somehow "different" from the other people which
> contribute to the ballot preparation (e.g. seconders and proposers of
> the initial and subsequent amendments)
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > 4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
> > archive is very difficult:
> > [...]
> > How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
> > is less of a burden?
>
> The only way is to make
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You got me wrong. I don't want to change our processes to force people to
> adopt new tools. I want to change our processes so that it's easier to
> complete far-reaching projects: in my case, it includes everything from
> working on dpkg-
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 06:07:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing such changes
> > >is less of a burden?
> >
> > They are not.
>
> I can't accept the premise that we can't do better
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [100325 18:18]:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > > 4/ Organizing changes that have an impact on (a large part of|all) the
> > > archive is very difficult:
> > > [...]
> > > How can we change our processes so that doing/organizing suc
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
> happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
> requirements to the others? What happens when the secretary and the
> proposer disagree about
So at the start of the week, I asked:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:19:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bearing in mind:
> * www.debian.org/social_contract says Debian's "priorities are our
> users and free software",
> * popcon.debian.org currently reports 91,523 submissions,
> * popcon.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> A very good example of that is debhelper; nobody ever told anyone to use
> it, yet most of our packages do, directly or otherwise.
Parts of Debian encourage experimentation, innovation, and evolution of
better solutions: parts don't. That debian/rules is a flexible,
standa
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Do you believe that our NM process could be responsible of this by
> > unvoluntarily favoring packagers over developers?
>
> Uhm, that's a very hard question. I do believe that the NM process
> favors patient people over brilliant people. But I'
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:15:45AM +0100, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> With respect to attracting new contributors, please ponder the idea of a
> formal one-on-one mentoring scheme (as opposed to one-off interactions via
> d-mentors).
>
> I do realise that personal mentorship takes time; that's a r
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:22:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> By standardization I mean that something should be used as default
> tool unless reasons exist to use something else (I do not mean that we
> sould impose something to everybody for all cases, but it should still
> be what's used in
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:17:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> In this thread it was proposed to trust DDs to nominate other members
> and I found the idea very interesting. In order to make it more
> consensual, there is probably a need for making concessions like
> shortlisting the trusted DD
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:27:43 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Salut Charles,
> Our users, if they want to modify, study, redistribute or use after rebuild
> our
^^
> system, need the source. At no moment these operations involve modifying a RFC
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:08:00 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Still, in your question you're hinting at some earlier mentoring, and I
> believe that should happen in teams. [..]
> That is why I like the http://www.debian.org/Teams/ page. Ideally, that
> can become the welcome place for new cont
Hi Héctor!
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:55:35PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> First of all congrats to all candidates and thanks for stepping up
> for doing this task.
Thanks! :-)
> I came up with a really nice draft howto[1] which I would like to
> bring up to your attention, so the basic questio
Charles Plessy writes:
> In this thread it was proposed to trust DDs to nominate other members
> and I found the idea very interesting. In order to make it more
> consensual, there is probably a need for making concessions like
> shortlisting the trusted DDs according to some criteria like the tim
On Thu Mar 25 18:37, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
> > happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
> > requirements to the others? What happens wh
On Thu Mar 25 21:19, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The GR we had on DAM proposal [2] has been only on the procedure which
> led to the d-d-a mail. In fact, the outcome of the GR asks for
> discussion+consensus (or vote), but we've never dwelled into that
> afterwords.
I did try quite hard, b
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Secondly, I was wondering how Debian could make it easier for people
> to contribute than other (derivatives and non-derivatives)
> distributions. I came up with a really nice draft howto[1] which I
> would like to bring up to your attention,
Hi,
All the rebuttals have been added to the platforms now, but
they're not yet available on all the mirrors.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20
Le Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:55:35PM +0100, Hector Oron a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> First of all congrats to all candidates and thanks for stepping up
> for doing this task.
>
> Secondly, I was wondering how Debian could make it easier for people
> to contribute than other (derivatives and non-deriv
Dear Anthony,
sorry for not keeping up with the answers, this campaign is very intensive !
It is interesting that your question was a kind of mini-experiment. As a
molecular biologist, I like experiments a lot. Below is the draft that I never
sent because I did not find time to add some flesh to
38 matches
Mail list logo
