On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered
> > under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one
> > ever wo
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> > communications
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
> according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
> while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
The current situation appears to be that we end
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold
> or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot
> suggests:
It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL
decision
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:10:11AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Ah, we'll need another GR to be able to log into *all* debian hosts
> again, then. Because that's something that has always been possible in
> the past, until a couple of years ago.
I don't recall murphy being open access in the nin
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:16:34PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 04:55:58PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Unfortunately we have big cultural differences when it comes to use of the
> > money. Some people [...] feel they are some sort of second class
> > developers bec
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > packages?
> Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.
T
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 07:15:59PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> 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
> Could you explain how the "time involvement required to b
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:06:30PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Since we do not ask new DD's to e.g. underwrite the mailinglist culture, I
> also do not see it as necessary to discontinue being a DD when you do not
> like that culture. As a matter of fact, I'd be offended if someone would
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 05:52:49PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 16:50, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Not for the benefit of that developer, but for our benefit. I have no fear
> > at all of Matthew Garrett doing an incompetent job of preparing packages;
> > why should we mak
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:05:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Sure, "Don't quit Debian then" is a valid response (though I'm perhaps
> > old-fashioned in terms of thinking that as a full member of an
> > organisation I hav
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:29:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 09:00:43PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > And at the time he was kind of right, [...], so he was
> > rejecting the delays on the ???over-administrative-thing??? NM has
> > become since he cre
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> GTD is quite popular and has been discussed on planet Debian several times
> together with the "Inbox Zero" principle... that's why I said "well-known".
> But you're right that I should have given more references.
Note that the wh
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
Note that there is currently activ
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
> > would be different but I have not seen them doing this.
> Great, so since
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy.
> The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's
> not fixed, it's lame for people to complain,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
> knowledge, the votes are secrets, and the results published only after
> the election is closed.
This doesn't change the fact that there is a chance that by voting
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I
ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2
(it peers inside the library internals).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a d
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> "I want to drop non-free".
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:19:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
> > non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern ov
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
> changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
> SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy s
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:57:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Here's a "lynx -dump" transcription for those who don't want to launch
> their web browser. :-)
While I've already read all the platforms already but I do think that
posting them all here is an excellent idea - my thought when I
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I
ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2
(it peers inside the library internals).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a d
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> "I want to drop non-free".
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:19:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
> > non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern ov
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is
> > there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal
> > importance, there are six
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved
> lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at
> the moment. Would you support using donations to fund one or both of
> those?
This is also an iss
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:28:21AM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is also an issue in some other industries for things like the PCI
> > DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FWIW.
> Taken with a gr
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 04:52:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:49:47PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Then we can look at the official mirrors logs
> > (for distinct IPs regularly downloading package indexes in a given time
> > window), and at the same index down
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:34:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Personally, I would put this down to Debian simply not having any
> > contentious decisions to make. I haven't been following Debian as
> > closely as I once did, though, so perhaps I just haven't seen them.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:13:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed
> > by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think
> > this is enti
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In addition, a list of "do not"s will make people assume that the
> project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
> participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still
> somewhat negative: "
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
> > 2. "Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the
> > forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators,
> > please see [the p
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:35:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing
> > Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to
&
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 Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:20:19PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:56:50PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> >That said, I am in favour of keeping the existing voting period. All
> >the energetic parts of the DPL election process mostly cease by the
> >time the discussion pe
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with
> > campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly
> > peo
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial
> changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the
> SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We
The controversy s
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:57:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I wouldn't wait longer than a week after your initial post
> > to pose such surrogate answers.
> So I'll happily post it earlier, and with a clear indication of my
> intentions, bu
ontains the ballot paper
and whatnot. Am I right in thinking that needs to come from you?
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpscDVA396WU.pgp
Descr
about the non-freeness of the software he
> tries to get/install.
And, perhaps more to the point, let them read the license of a non-free
package before rather than after they install it.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac
s a move to
> specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
> "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly
> separate these from the "main" collection.
>
> -
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
Not all the world is the US.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PRO
bout making political
statement there is usually a technical reason for what we do. The
politics is as much a byproduct of of producing one of the most
technically excellent Linux distributions out there as an end in itself.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid
lly, this also provides for the core, or Foundation, documents of
> the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
> constitution itself enjoys.
> ==
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpVB0SZFCuG9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t
> they should say, and that's what the voters should be reading.
It might be worth looking at the way in which CFVs are produced for
the various Usenet heirachies - there's a lot of experience there of
doing just this sort of thing.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
e. I don't know how much provision there is for
doing things like that in the constitution, though.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpB3j4nACU4S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I posted something to this thread (on a mailing list to which I'm
subscribed) a number of weeks ago. Could you please stop CCing me on
every message? It's annoying enough when you've just posted.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
to answer this problem. I'm not
sure how well it allows people to say "I want to modify the foundation
documents but I'm not concerned about how easy that is", although I
think preference ranking ought to DTRT.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
s voting NO is not a sufficiently vigorous way of registering one's
> disagreement...
That doesn't really provide a good way of providing alternative ways of
solving a problem. Imagine if the logo vote had been done by voting in
turn on each logo in turn rather than by having a singl
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:57:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Here's a "lynx -dump" transcription for those who don't want to launch
> their web browser. :-)
While I've already read all the platforms already but I do think that
posting them all here is an excellent idea - my thought when I l
about the non-freeness of the software he
> tries to get/install.
And, perhaps more to the point, let them read the license of a non-free
package before rather than after they install it.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac
s a move to
> specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
> "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly
> separate these from the "main" collection.
>
> -
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux
> software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage.
Not all the world is the US.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PRO
bout making political
statement there is usually a technical reason for what we do. The
politics is as much a byproduct of of producing one of the most
technically excellent Linux distributions out there as an end in itself.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid
, this also provides for the core, or Foundation, documents of
> the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
> constitution itself enjoys.
> ==
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
PGP signature
what
> they should say, and that's what the voters should be reading.
It might be worth looking at the way in which CFVs are produced for
the various Usenet heirachies - there's a lot of experience there of
doing just this sort of thing.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
e. I don't know how much provision there is for
doing things like that in the constitution, though.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
PGP signature
I posted something to this thread (on a mailing list to which I'm
subscribed) a number of weeks ago. Could you please stop CCing me on
every message? It's annoying enough when you've just posted.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
to answer this problem. I'm not
sure how well it allows people to say "I want to modify the foundation
documents but I'm not concerned about how easy that is", although I
think preference ranking ought to DTRT.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid gru
s voting NO is not a sufficiently vigorous way of registering one's
> disagreement...
That doesn't really provide a good way of providing alternative ways of
solving a problem. Imagine if the logo vote had been done by voting in
turn on each logo in turn rather than by having a singl
62 matches
Mail list logo
