Hello,
here's my question to the candidates[1]:
Please name three teams in Debian:
1. a team that works well and in a sustainable way, and how a DPL can
bring thankfulness and appreciation;
2. a team that works well but not in a sustainable way, and how a DPL
can help bringing sustaina
Hello Neil & Lucas,
assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason, not packaging new upstream
versions in unstable, etc) and is not really cooperative (closing
Hi Brian,
On 27/03/14 at 19:54 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the
> current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts
> are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to
> change the status quo?
>
>
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
> regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
> backwards compatibility for no good reason, not packaging new upstream
> versions in unstable, etc) and is not really cooperat
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:12:51AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> this use was my intent in 2008 when I added this field, following the release
> of version 3.8.0.0 of our Policy, that closed bug #65577 asking that
> “copyright
> should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribut
[ questions for candidate below, see "Q:" ]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:25:44AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are also good reasons for not keeping them in the team: they might
> be perceived as "badge collectors" by the rest of the team, or as people
> who like to express their opinion and
Hi Neil & Lucas,
the DPL has limited powers on the member list of the technical
committee. Especially §6.2.5 says that he can agree with the committee
to dismiss one of the members.
What is your stance on disruptive members in the committee?
Do you think it applies to some of the behaviors obser
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process
>more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for
>nominations, 3 for compaigning, and 2 for voting. We could reduce that
>to 3/4 weeks, with
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation?
What if they are in vacation for 2 weeks?
So, in fact, what you really want to do is to compare the probability
that a DD is AFK for 2 weeks with that that she is AFK for 1 wee
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
> >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But
> >today, it's probably
On 28/03/14 at 13:24 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> >What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process
> >more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for
> >nominations, 3 for compaigning
On Friday 21 March 2014 17:48:02 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[snip]
> Generally, my impression is that many Debian contributors do not fancy
> travelling that much, or are just too busy, and thus don't really like
> to attend too many such events.
While I recognize that
- I don't know many DDs in pers
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:56:50PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
>> >as intermittent internet
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written,
> >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But
> >today, it's probably
Hi Gunnar,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:55:35PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> So, back to the case: What's your take on this issue? How much can one
> part of the Debian universe of subprojects expect the money it
> generated be available for its future? Should we set a clear number?
>
On the specif
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:57:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (To both) What kinds of unexpected expenses do you think Debian should keep
> funds available to cover? What do you think is the appropriate level of
> cash reserves for the project to hold, and why?
>
Basically, machin
16 matches
Mail list logo
