On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:13:22PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
> > The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers,
> > decides:
> >
> > The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
> > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
>
> I hereby propose this altern
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
> > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
>
> I hereby propose this alternate op
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:29:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> For example, if you want to install Debian on an NSLU, the only difficulty is
> finding the unofficial D-I images that include non-free firmware. And even
> that can be improved. They could be linked from the main website, and
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
>
> I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
>
> | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed to be
> | run on the ho
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
> >
> > I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
>
> I'm hereby proposing the following genera
5 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.16.16.14] (helo=maggie.local ident=schoenfeld)
by imr-mail.intra.in-medias-res.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1L9ami-000506-VA
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:44:05 +0100
Date: Mon, 8
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
> when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
> changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
> satis
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
> of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
> package
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
> > document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
> > simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
> > say, a
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> > > say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
> >
> > I wouldn't say that it is that eas
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
> > requirements.
>
> (...)
>
> So, yes, that does require inter
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
>
> Hi again Charles!
>
> >I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
> >"Collaborative maintenance should
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirement
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> > debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> > title, especially the 87wsajgef
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > What do you think about such a proposal?
>
> Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal,
> instead of p
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:25:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > > >
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:42:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately
> > they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer.
> > However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good
> > id
course (hint hint :-)) ]
As already stated elsewhere I'm surely opening that topic somewhere
with a broader audience, but its a good topic for me to see which
opinions the DPL candidates act for.
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Some of th
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
> > think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:15:00AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >What do you think about such a proposal?
>
> I'd be quite worried about the blocking potential of such a move,
> actually. One of the reasons that Debian scales so well is that *most*
> of the work we do day-to-day does not depend
21 matches
Mail list logo
