Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 15:56, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > It wasn't too polite from Steve, IMHO. He lost a great opportunity to
> > avoid use d-d-a to promote his campaign even before the campaign
> > period starts. Please Martin, just check the timing of the thin
Sven Luther wrote:
> The DAMs, who did not follow their own procedure, who did refuse to
> provide the dates of the expulsion requests, because they knew well
> enough that it would show the irregularities of the procedure, who
> ignored the 70:7 expressed opinion of the DDs against the expulsion.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 1/ I know people who want to maintain package but don't want to be DD.
>
> The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
> to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
> lower the barrier to become DD because the role of
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Another question I have is that basically, I don't grok why it's
> harder to give DM's uploads rights, than NM's an account.
DD implies an account on ~20 machines. Having only upload rights
does not imply this and the outcome of a fuckup in a .deb will
only cause an inc
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
> > > to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
> > > lower the barrier to become DD because the role of DD are critical in
> > > the success of Debian (while the role a
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> > * multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's
> > removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic
> > uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to
> > work with.
> Also, expect many errors at least on the
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help.
> > > But don't block other initiatives to improve Debian for reasons which
> > > are dubious.
> >
> > So my reasons are dubious? I guess I should let you vote for me and just
> > sign the ballo
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 1 It's a one time issue even if the time period involved can be quite
> > long and
>
> A package maintainer that can't upload during one or two years and who has
> to chase sponsors indefinitely will end up demotivated and won't finish his
> NM process. (It's not
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can you be a bit more verbose as to why you could not just refrain
> > from using some rights that a DD has?
>
> I was close to resigning because I thought the Debian community was
> taking active steps to a wrong direction. I
Mark Brown wrote:
> In addition to the practical issues that Raphael raises a number of
> people have expressed a desire to maintian packages (and otherwise be
> involved in the technical side of Debian) without having any involvement
> in the political side of Debian.
Well, they are free to decid
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
> Raphael did kindly give me a pointer to your running discussions, which
> is of interest for me, since I'm one of the potential "DM" in a near
> future, and I wanted to give my point of view on that topic, and to give
> a few comments on the text.
Thanks for your mail.
>
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > > 15 months, while with DM, it would have been only few days...
> >
> > No. You won't be able to fix it unless you have become a DM with
> > exactly the dvidvi package and thus are al
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
> > > During my discussions with DDs, I found there is currently no solution
> >
> > This is where you are wrong. The correct way to handle this, is to be
> > part of a team, working on the tex packages and providing fixes, and if
> > there is an upload needed, a DD member o
Benjamin,
it seems to me that neither NM nor DM is suited for you. Reporting broken
stuff and optionally attaching a patch later or at the same time is the
way to go. In case of TeX packages, there's the TeX maintainer team that
will probably take care of your fix. In case of other packages, wh
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> If you are _that_ interested in helping the TeX packaging team, join
> it, I think it's co-maintained on alioth, you just need an alioth
> account, it takes a few minutes to have one, and you'll have to ask the
> pkg-tex people to give you commits rights, which should do
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
> Another case come back in my mind: pandora. Those fonts have been
> available with TeX since years and years. They have been removed from
> Debian/main for good reasons (wrong license: free for non commercial use).
> In my mind, in such a case, it should be mandatory to mov
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
> least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
I believe it has way to many flaws to be seconded.
> Debian Maintainers Proposal
>
> The Debian Project endorses the concept of "Debia
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> > > 5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
> > >Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that
> > > keyring
> > &g
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On 28/06/07 at 05:49 +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Yes, please sent it, I'll publish it somewhere.
> > > If you are not too ashamed of your scripts, I'd like to see them as
> > > well, if you don't mind.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks to Felipe, the lists of possible c
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 31 March 2008 21:45, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> [wordpress]
> > FWIW, it's orphaned since yesterday. But let's keep it in Lenny
> > as well, I no longer care.
>
> Hu?
>
> Can you please elaborate? "Orphaned, pretty bad security record, let's keep
> it"
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:
I believe that the Debian project is way better off without this
General Resolution and with the rules and social contract as they are
to date. Even worse, I have t
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081110 22:03]:
> > On Mon Nov 10 12:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I take it then that you're fine with the discussed DFSG issues in glibc
> > > > for release? Is there a particular
Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi
>
> As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
> press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
> firmware. Users and press are complaining that their servers don't have
> network anymore after an upgrade or that their not
23 matches
Mail list logo
