ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
>> This all needs to change.
>
> Since we're all geeks perhaps we should try to address a social
> problem with a technical solution.
>
> If I
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> This all needs to change.
Since we're all geeks perhaps we should try to address a social
problem with a technical solution.
If I went and wrote a webform/emailscanning robot which enforced these
rules and automaticall
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> I'm afraid that simply isn't good enough. The question should have
> been deferred as a matter of course. You shouldn't have suggested
> going ahead with it anyway, and the rest of the board should not ha
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> > Excellent. Can you explain why it wasn't followed in this case ?
>
> Because I violated it. I apparently dropped the ball on getting the
> fi
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> > Do you support Resolution 2007-01-16-iwj.5.html ?
>>
>> I do not have a
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Please reread the announcement. It explicitly mentioned that there was a
> possibility of one or two associated project resolutions being brought up,
> where the associated projects in question had been discussed with
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:57:51AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> And actually now that I look at the meeting announcement, it stated
> there were no motions and the agenda says that privoxy was up for
> discussion. So I guess I am confused as to why there was a vote at all.
Please reread the ann
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:38 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> > > and fe
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> > and feel that in future a different process with greater
> > trans
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
> > my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
> > about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
> > ones that can vote. So
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 17:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> (b) you agree with me that there should be more transparency
> and feel that in future a different process with greater
> transparency would be bet
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> Just to refresh members' memory, the email about Privoxy to
> spi-private dated Fri Aug 15 22:04:19 UTC 2008 proposed:-
>
> The first liason would be [Fabian Keil]. The liason can be changed
>by any of the Proj
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > > [Ian Jackson:]
> > > > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > > >
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I don't know honestly but what I do know is that there are many
> > contributing members that do not bother to read let alone subscribe to
> > -general.
>
> It's easy to paint the bikeshed of what list to give notice to. It
> would be
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:42:45AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
> my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
> about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
> ones that can
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > problems
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > COMME
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> MJ Ray writes ("Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > [item 7.1, Resolution 2008.12.17.bg.1 - Privoxy as associated
> project]
> For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> problems. That i
Ian Jackson wrote: [...]
> The membership should have the chance to review all of the important
> content of a resolution beforehand (unless it's an emergency of
> course). That _includes_ stuff like the people we recognise as being
> in charge. [...]
Just to refresh members' memory, the email a
MJ Ray writes ("Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> [item 7.1, Resolution 2008.12.17.bg.1 - Privoxy as associated project]
>
> luk_: I think the three folks listed in the resolution are the
> three primary commiters. privoxy.org is the web site for the project,
> I believ
Contrary to my impression from the announced agenda that it would be a
rather short and disappointing meeting, a load of late business was
added to "Items up for discussion" which made for interesting reading,
including a Privoxy resolution which appeared just before the meeting
(good to have some
22 matches
Mail list logo
