> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
Adrian> If I send an email requesting all data Debian has about me to
Adrian> data-protect...@debian.org, will I receive a complete reply within
the
Adrian> expected time, including all data members of delegations like the
Adrian> Debian Ac
I will write a more detailed response to Russ's analysis later.
I am behind on getting my packages into shape and I want to concentrate
on that for now.
I do agree with Russ's basic conclusion: we should decide whether to
adopt tag2upload for reasons other than security of the architecture.
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> The attack that Simon is talking about doesn't require a
Russ> preimage attack, only a successful collision attack against
Russ> Git trees using SHAttered plus some assumptions about where
Russ> Git may be lazy about revalidating hashes.
TL;DR: I think a GR is an appropriate tool for making this decision at
this time. I disagree with Simon's characterization of the TC's powers
and think it is valuable for us to think broadly about all the tools we
have for making decisions, so I am responding here.
> "Simon" == Simon McVittie
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
>> 2) Attacker possibly through a compromise of the dgit server and
>> salsa changes the git view to be something harmless.
Sorry I was assuming that the web ui and the git repository were still
consistent, but were inconsistent with what was uploa
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Gerardo Ballabio writes ("What is the source code (was: [RFC]
Ian> General Resolution to deploy tag2upload)"):
>> Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
>> > I wonder if we have a good idea of what the project believes to
>> be the case between #1 a
> "Salvo" == Salvo Tomaselli writes:
>> In this sense, the history is like comments. You wouldn't think
>> it was still the source code if all the comments had been
>> stripped out.
Salvo> But if by mistake one upstream adds a proprietary file in git
Salvo> and then remo
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> I worked on an update of my security review last night to take
Russ> into account the additional concerns that people have raised
Russ> and other feedback. I wrote a whole bunch of words about this
Russ> specifically because I don't think
> "Matthias" == Matthias Urlichs writes:
Matthias> A reproducibility checker for t2u seems like child's play,
Matthias> compared to that effort. While no t2u checker currently
Matthias> exists, somebody might be motivated enough to write
Matthias> one. (Hint, hint …)
You don'
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> Hello everyone, I seek seconds for the General Resolution at
Sean> the end of this e-mail. The preceding sections are an
Sean> introductory explanation and rationale.
Sean> We have reviewed the discussion we've already had and prepared
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> = BEGIN FORMAL RESOLUTION TEXT
Sean> tag2upload allows DDs and DMs to upload simply by using the
Sean> git-debpush(1) script to push a signed git tag.
Sean> 1. tag2upload, in the form designed and implemented by Sean
Sean> Whitt
> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille writes:
Andreas> I would really love to see some mails / logs of discussion
Andreas> between tag2upload developers and ftpmaster team. Is there
Andreas> any chance that we could bring the involved parties in one
Andreas> (virtual) room and discuss
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns
Branden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, it seems that several people are in favor of action on this issue
and no one really seems to be objecting. Does someone want to
formally propose a GR I can read and second?
> "Jordi" == Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jordi> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw
Jordi> wrote:
>> Uhm, what issue are you talking about?
Jordi> Smith/Condorcet vote stuff, most probably. There is other
Jordi> stuff pending, tho.
Correc
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible
> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-02
Martin> 17:58]:
>> To that end, I am soliciting specific feedback by means of the
>> questionnaire below. If you have perspectives and opinions you
>> woul
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice?
Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with
no amendments.
Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of
more discussion?
I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual q
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck
Anthony> wrote:
>> Sam Hartman wrote: >Would the two options on the ballot be my
>> GR and a default option of >more discus
> "Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows
Matthew> one to identify one's vote is flawed. Since all
Matthew> components of the string to be fed to md5sum are chosen
Matthew> by the secretary or know
I seem to recall that Manoj started a discussion period for the voting
fixes GR. There seemed to be some discussion but no significant
proposed changes and the points raised during the discussion seem from
my standpoint to have been answered. What needs to happen now so we
can actually vote on
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> we have two examples of where per-option quorum is flawed:
John> Example 1:
John> 2 options + default, R=15. 15 voters. 10 vote ABD, 5 vote
John> BDA
John> result: Condorcet would select option A Proposed
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew> that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below
> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Raul Miller wrote:
Nathanael> No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always
Nathanael> opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing
Nathanael> up to oppose something always count toward quorum
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a
John> pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable
John> buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see
John>
http://lists.debian.org/debi
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> 3a. Due to the inherent meaning of the default option,
Andrew> voters will typically not consider it especially
Andrew> undesirable (unless they strongly feel that a revote will
Andrew> create tension or damage D
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest
>>>>> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>
John> but is
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hi, In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of
Manoj> writing, the polls shall close for the voting GR. The
Manoj> quorum has already been met, if you are interested.
Wait, I thought quorum only mattered for
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
Manoj> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
>>> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have
>>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the
>> proponents of some option to do a fair bit of th
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
Branden> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below
'further
Branden> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole pur
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of
Branden> voters will, even within a slate of options preferred
Branden> over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively.
Branden> I ground this on the
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that
Raul> even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins
Raul> on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider
Raul> updating policy to incorpo
> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJ> There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
MJ> distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed
MJ> list stands.
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirem
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I second this proposal.
Raul> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call
Raul> for seconds is not in reply to any other post.]
Raul> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on
Raul> the 19th
> "Zenaan" == Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zenaan> On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
Zenaan> Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to
Zenaan> distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being
Zenaan> "software" but instead a u
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We have not be taken away from work by the present
Thomas> discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second,
Thomas> Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to
Thomas> be part of this disc
> "Anand" == Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anand> I, personally, suspect that the unfriendliness of Debian is
Anand> behind a lot of requests for smaller mailing lists seen by
Anand> listmaster these days. A lot of people don't bother to use
Anand> the main mailing l
I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial
corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed
new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not
able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find
it a less powerful and m
1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The
I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to
decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to
abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be
distinct from the pr
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> [Note: debian shouldn't wait for this group, on any pressing
Raul> issues. For the moment, we probably want to avoid combining
Raul> amendment and final votes in the same voting message, but
Raul> what we've got is ba
It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since
April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around
for at least a year from voting or is this a bug?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 03:41:18 +
From: [EMAIL PROT
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:24:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson
Ben> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:45:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: >
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:31:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson
>> wrote: > > > >
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> As was I..
Jason> If this was anything but debian this would void the results
Jason> of the election.
We could choose to do that too. However, it seems kind of silly.
We'd have to spend another three weeks voting,
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending
Branden> automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS
Branden> or any other subject).
Branden> If he does not comply within 24 hours of ra
[Hopefully we can finish this discussion quickly or move to personal mail. The issue
at hand no longer matters.
]
> "Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> By the same argument i should be able to opt out of
Glenn> recieving mail from the bug tracking system abou
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Stop being stupid, our goal is to provide a good OS for
Raphael> all our users, this does include having *good* localized
Raphael> content whereever it's possible. For this the maintainer
Raphael> may want to
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raphael> écrivait:
>> Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to
>> be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever
>> r
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only
Peter> for developers approved by the project?
It's unclear to me whether it says or does not say this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns
Branden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, it seems that several people are in favor of action on this issue
and no one really seems to be objecting. Does someone want to
formally propose a GR I can read and second?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Jordi" == Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jordi> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw
Jordi> wrote:
>> Uhm, what issue are you talking about?
Jordi> Smith/Condorcet vote stuff, most probably. There is other
Jordi> stuff pending, tho.
Corre
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible
> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-02
Martin> 17:58]:
>> To that end, I am soliciting specific feedback by means of the
>> questionnaire below. If you have perspectives and opinions you
>> woul
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice?
Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with
no amendments.
Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of
more discussion?
I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual q
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck
Anthony> wrote:
>> Sam Hartman wrote: >Would the two options on the ballot be my
>> GR and a default opt
> "Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows
Matthew> one to identify one's vote is flawed. Since all
Matthew> components of the string to be fed to md5sum are chosen
Matthew> by the secretary or know
I seem to recall that Manoj started a discussion period for the voting
fixes GR. There seemed to be some discussion but no significant
proposed changes and the points raised during the discussion seem from
my standpoint to have been answered. What needs to happen now so we
can actually vote on
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew> that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below
> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Raul Miller wrote:
Nathanael> No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always
Nathanael> opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing
Nathanael> up to oppose something always count toward quorum
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a
John> pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable
John> buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see
John> http://lists.debian.org/debia
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> 3a. Due to the inherent meaning of the default option,
Andrew> voters will typically not consider it especially
Andrew> undesirable (unless they strongly feel that a revote will
Andrew> create tension or damage D
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest
>>>>> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>
John> but is
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hi, In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of
Manoj> writing, the polls shall close for the voting GR. The
Manoj> quorum has already been met, if you are interested.
Wait, I thought quorum only mattered for
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
Manoj> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
>>> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have
>>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the
>> proponents of some option to do a fair bit of th
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
Branden> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
Branden> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purp
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of
Branden> voters will, even within a slate of options preferred
Branden> over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively.
Branden> I ground this on the
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that
Raul> even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins
Raul> on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider
Raul> updating policy to incorpo
> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJ> There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
MJ> distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed
MJ> list stands.
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirem
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I second this proposal.
Raul> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call
Raul> for seconds is not in reply to any other post.]
Raul> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on
Raul> the 19th
> "Zenaan" == Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zenaan> On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote:
Zenaan> Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to
Zenaan> distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being
Zenaan> "software" but instead a u
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We have not be taken away from work by the present
Thomas> discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second,
Thomas> Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to
Thomas> be part of this disc
I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a
position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take
that as the project's current position.
I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to
put it, and can figure out how to evolve it.
I
Hi.
I prefer option A from the TC ballot to Matthew's proposal. However, I
think I prefer no vote to a GR on option A. So, I'm going to hold off
to see if Matthew's proposal gets sufficient seconds before doing
anything.
That said, I respect Matthew's proposal. I believe he is positively
cont
Hi.
I'd support a proposal that focused on reaffirming the decisions that
have already been taken, and it sort of sounds like you're doing that.
However, I think your proposal goes significantly further than I'd like.
So, I'd rank your proposal significantly below Lucas's proposal.
however, if y
> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
Joey> currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy,
Joey> to the TC. It could implicitly or expli
> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
Joey> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
---
>>
>> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when
>> proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be
>> dis
> "Arno" == Arno Töll writes:
Arno> Hi Kurt,
Arno> On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
>> or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
>> more of the options into overrding the TC and
I support this proposal, and if that was intented as a formal proposal
I'd probably second.
I'd also support:
* making this something the TC decides for themselves with your wording
as an initial condition
I do think rotation in bodies like the TC is really good both for the
members' personal
> "Charles" == Charles Plessy writes:
Charles> Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it
Charles> can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of
Charles> the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say
Charles> that a GR is unwelcome, and b)
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardl
Steve, thanks for writing up your note.
I strongly agree that Ian's resolution is legitimate. It's not a abuse
of process, it's reasonably to bring forward.
I also think Charles's amendment is legitimate in the same sense: to say
that we as a community do not choose to act as a community in this
Hi.
This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
think this is an important issue.
My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
you received.
If a resolution isn't proposed within a week or so and there isn't some
nontrivial ongoing discussion
> "Neil" == Neil McGovern writes:
Neil> This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it
Neil> was agreed to defer this until the current GR has quietened
Neil> down. See
Neil>
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html
Hi.
I
> "Sune" == Sune Vuorela writes:
Sune> I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression
Sune> was that - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a
Sune> good idea - that they should push the thing forward (if no one
Sune> else does) - but they should wa
Hi.
thanks for your input.
For myself, I definitely appreciate the contributions of all the parties
you mentioned, and appreciate your reminder that Debian is a very large
community.
One important category you didn't mention is all our wonderful upstreams
who have given us this great software to s
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
>> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
>> periods on debian-vote is problematic.
Don> Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well.
Don> I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this
Don
> "Andreas" == Andreas Henriksson writes:
Andreas> Hello Anthony Towns!
Andreas> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Andreas> [...]
>> I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few
>> years, and my feeling is that it's better to
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian,
Holger> someone who perceives himself as loser of the tech-ctte
Holger> decision (instead of accepting a group decission of a group
Holger> which he is part of) and thus d
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
>> on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of
>> the N most senior members automati
Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to
here on the list today in response to my message this morning.
I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to
respond on-list.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be
reasoned but
This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm
definitely slowing down responses.
Replying to two messages.
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Josh Triplett writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> > Wha
Watching other volunteer organizations, I've found that having turnover
somewhere between 3-5 years tends to work fairly well.
I've seen this in student organizations where the turnover tends to be
somewhat encouraged by graduation although in the cases I'm thinking of
that did not force the issue
Hi folks.
A few weeks ago I indicated strong interest in helping drive the term
limits proposal.
I no longer feel comfortable doing that, and also have found something
else that is taking up my Debian energy.
As a result of that message and some other discussions I gained a much
better understand
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread
Lucas> over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire
Lucas> the 2 most senior members - expire the 2-R most senior
Lucas> members, with R the number of resign
>>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think
>> a lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of se
So, let's assume we'd adopted this proposal back in July or so.
And then things happened as they did, and we got the same three
resignations we did.
Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten those same three resignations. I
actually argue that it is a feature to encourage the people who resigned
to do so.
201 - 300 of 387 matches
Mail list logo
