Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
* Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> [2004-02-19 16:07]:
> Is the result of the nm-commitee then send to the nm mailinglist or
> also just private?
We have unfortuntely not found agreement and hence not sent anything
about the last 2 rejections anywhere. (One was semi-public anyway
becaause of his rant on a certain well known site, and the other one
not controversial.) My person favourite is to tell -private that
someone has been rejected so other Debian developers are informed.
> Just to clarify things:
> Where should the public discussion be started and what would be the
> procedure? Just forward the rejection mail to debian-devel?
Yes, the original rejection message as well as your response to it;
I'd use -newmaint rather than -devel and tell people to subscribe to
-newmaint if they're interested in following it.
> Another point:
> What changes when I opt for a public discussion? Does that just add a
> flamewar that the nm-commitee has to follow and anoys them (like any
> extra work) or would that mean I have to get 2/3 positive votes from
> DDs to overrule James? The effect of opting for a public discussion
> are unclear.
The NM committee can overturn the DAM's decision for a hard reject
with a 2/3 majority. Debian developers can take part in the public
discussion, write recommendations and try to convince the NM
committee, but it's really them who make the decision. However, to
give the public more influence, I think it would be fair to lower the
number of NM committee needed to overturn the decision from 2/3 to 1/2
if e.g. 10 Debian developers recommend the approval (that is, taking
_net_ numbers. 10 positive recommendations and 4 negative ones would
be 6 in total).