- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I
do not think the secretary has the
Hi
Dne Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:47 +1100
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au napsal(a):
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to
the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet
Debian.
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:12PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
canceled.
My suggestion is to do a very simple vote first, with only two choices:
a) continue with the release process and don't wait for further GRs
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I was just thinking of postposing the end-of-vote cron job, so
no re-voting would be needed.
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
the vote, but that
Brian May dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:45:47AM +1100]:
(...)
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
--
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
== == = = == ===
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
I would
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, David Weinehall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I do not
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to
On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au
wrote:
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
just missed it.)
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:52:55 Romain Beauxis, vous avez écrit :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no?
I don't read shorten in this link, only start.
Woops, sorry I misread discussion with vote.
The problem with this quote is that it was used to justify the
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
just
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I believe this only applies
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the
*other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one.
(I may have just missed it.)
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 00:31 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Debian Project Secretary secret...@debian.org (13/12/2008):
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === ===
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com (15/12/2008):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html
Let's quote for people following at home:
| So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would
| prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my
preferred choices second, the rest
[Loïc Minier]
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
This choice is actually about delaying Lenny, and not so much about
reaffirming the social contract. The
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:50:46PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:29 +0200]:
The only constitutional way to get rid of the Secretary without his consent is
for the DPL to fail to reappoint him, which would automatically mean (since
I'm
assuming that the Secretary does not go willingly) that a replacement
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Is there someone on the plane here to do what's needed with the
secretary? If the DPL isn't willing to take any action here (and I'm
really annoyed that despite repeated questions about it he never showed
up in the
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the
numerous problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm
*really* not happy with that, and
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:34 +0200]:
But your interpretation is certainly possible. Of course, that just means
it's up to the Secretary to rule which (if either) is correct :)
Brilliant.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho antti-juh...@kaijanaho.fi writes:
Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary
cannot
be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho antti-juh...@kaijanaho.fi writes:
Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary cannot
be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
course amend the Constitution at the same time to
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:59:01PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I read it as a reference to the second paragraph of Section 7.2. Notice the
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've
Neil McGovern schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:50:46PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
problems with it were fixed, and it was
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I believe this only applies in the context of 7.2 (replacing the
secretary). This was discussed
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
--
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
== == = = == === === =
Why on earth does
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
--
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not DFSG ?
I believe this is because the GPL requires
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
Cheers,
Bastian
Debian Project Secretary schrieb:
[...]
--
Bastian Venthur
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
--
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
Why GPL ? Why not
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
[ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG
Debian Project Secretary secret...@debian.org (13/12/2008):
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
Votes must be received by
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
determined by the secretary,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:43:24PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:14:34PM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org
wrote:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my
preferred choices second, the rest third.
So in effect you prefer the options that do not require
Le Sunday 14 December 2008 21:19:35 Andreas Barth, vous avez écrit :
FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means
that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of
lenny proceeds.
Though I agree with that, voting for option 4 is even more
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Debian Project Secretary secret...@debian.org (13/12/2008):
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
The title of ballot option 5 is a complete fabrication on the part of the
Secretary that has nothing to do with its text. If option 5 had actually
said what the title claims it says, then a different supermajority
requirement might be in order,
- Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com wrote:
I know that some are fixated on the fact that firmware runs on some
other CPU but I don't buy that line of reasoning. If this firmware
business passes then I am going to start hunting down some MAME ROMs
that have lapsed into the public domain.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:56:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I read it as stating that we assume firmwares to be under a DFSG compliant
license that does not violate the GPL when linked into the kernel. The
kernel is GPL and the firmwares may be under a variety of licenses that do
not
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, December 21st, 2008
This ballot is for a
58 matches
Mail list logo
