ss-distribution cooperation
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> The message was nog signed.
Ooops,
Seconded.
>
>
> Kurt
>
paultag
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte
: :' : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'` 4096R / FEF2 EB20 16E6 A856 B98C E820 2DCD 6B5D E858 AD
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:41 PM Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > X<
> > Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> ... so how does this help the project? We are all wasting lots of time
> in discussing policy and if we want to support init and f
ovided are to show us a way out of this mess. I don't
think trying to comapre and contrast is helpful or even relevant to this
vote at all. The technical merits are largely not in play and shouldn't
factor in to the vote too much.
Please can we stop this discussion and getting baited into
Confirmed.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 5:33 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote :
> > > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> body
> > > who ha
I agree. I also don't know if this is something we can just do with the DPL
or not.
The name master isn't great, as is ftp.
No one has suggested a name yet. If this was my proposal, I'd suggest the
debian archive team.
Why can't we just change the name without a GR between the ftpteam and DPL?
> Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
> replace the Project Secretary.
>
Let me get this straight --
You (a seconder of the winning option) now believe that we need to stop and
re-open
discussion on a closed matter that the whole project voted on (which I
believ
I'd ask the DPL candidates to speak a bit about how they intend to
represent Debian externally -- both in terms out downstream outreach, as
well as upstream (or even side-stream) relations.
What sort of plans do you have to collaborate with other F/OSS
communities? Other distros?
Realtedly, what
Hello, DPL'ers,
What work will you be doing to continue Zach's efforts to negotiate with
the FSF over Debian's status as a Free Software Distribution?
Will you treat this issue as a priority? Can we expect continued open
dialogue with the FSF on this issue? Would you be willing to help find
the
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:35:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> >
> > -private is notified so DDs are aware.
>
> How is the state of -private those days ? When I unsubscribed, it was still
> mixing informations that are really
or something that was optional, and it actually backfired.
You do know upstart can use standard init scripts, yeah?
> Hope that clarifies.
Alas, not for me.
> Thanks,
> Guillem
Much love,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F0
t a GR.
This GR is premature.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:06:12PM +0400, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote:
> PS: BTW, Guillem what's a status of this GR-proposal?
No seconds. Many objections.
The TC has a decision. The flame is finally smoldering out. Can we move
on as a project?
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`.
backdoor you put in)
3) Goddamn slimy (for supporting this abuse)
I expected better of you.
DAM, I don't even know what I can suggest you do. This is a hugely
hurtful thing for Ian to do.
It sucks, because I did look up to you, Ian. I did respect your work,
and it literally pains me to f
wed him to
overturn the TC decision with a GR that mentions the word init is
absurd.
> --
> Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 735
t; clause in that resolution at all.
>
> Why isn't this just a standalone GR asserting a "position statement
> about issues of the day" on the coupling question?
Ian's backdoor would then trigger and abort the TC decision, so he says.
> Bdale
Cheers,
Paul
onfirming the interpretation of any GR which mentions the word
init as vacating the default init TC decision is nuts. This would be a position
statement about coupling, not default init, and it seems that this is to
be interpreted as triggering the clause, as noted by it's author.
--
.'&
. I overreated.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:38:02PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> I second Wouter's proposal and I second both these amendments by Neil.
I also second Wouter's proposal and amendments by Neil.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
:
d have been clearer - I don't think
> that my second amendment should be accepted either!
I agree too, I just seconded it because I think it's a good thing for
the project to actively choose against.
> Neil
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud De
s.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
bian releases
> satisfied this requirement, so there wasn't even any need to consider
> adding such requirement to the policy.
Getting tired of these threads :(
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D
unfair that things don't work in Docker if they need
some userland stuff that isn't around.
> > Getting tired of these threads :(
>
> True that. But at least this is about an actual point. (IMHO)
Word.
Still on VAC-ly yours,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Ta
re not
> considered as evidence of defects.
>
> This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
> (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override clause
> in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February.
>
> The TC's decis
--
Seconded.
Deciding technical policy via GR strikes me as awkward. I'd rather see
the maintainers in question attempt to resolve this.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D
e
very wrong.
transparency.debian.org anyone?[3]
[1]: parliamentary monitoring organization
[2]: http://sunlightfoundation.com/
[3]: campaign contributions and lobbying data might do some good to try
to disspell all the evil redhat is apparently buying us all off
--
.''`. Paul Tag
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>
> The Debian Constitution is very well written, in a way that is almost
> completely
> ungendered. The only gendered word left is the Chairman of the Technical
> Committee. There is no reason for this position to be gendered
decision none of us have to live with.
Like, for the most part, we're all spending our free time to make the
world a better place, can we like, talk?
paultag
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Paul Tagliamonte
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://people.debian.org/~paultag | https://pault.ag/
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋
riven by you, Soren, and not try to keep jamming this through -- that's
only going to build resentment throughout the project and start yet
another stupid rift that we'll infight over for years. I'd love to avoid
that.
paultag
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Paul Tagliamon
28 matches
Mail list logo
