Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I could bypass the whole thing and claim a minor change. That's probably
> cheating, but then again, it is what I had always intended, so from that
> POV I guess it isn't.
> So unless someone objects, the below is now the proposal:
The current constitution is kind of
... let's try that with cryptography this time around.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:58:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> > Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
> Wouter>
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Hi Kurt,
Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
Wouter> alive as long as it has not yet expired, but that it cannot
Wouter> be
Hi Kurt,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Ping?
>
> I've pushed this to the website on Tuesday. I forgot to mail
> that I've done so.
Ah, yes; indeed. I missed that, obviously.
Looking it over
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > >
> > > > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> > >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
Hi Kurt,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:54:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Text of the GR
> > > ==
> > >
> > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> > > constitution under point
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> >
> > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> > requires a 3:1 majority.
> >
> >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
>
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
>> seconders would re-affirm that they agree with the changes I propose,
>>
On 2021-11-23 02 h 50, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
>> Section A
>> -
>>
>> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>>
I second the below amendament.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter
Bill Allombert writes:
> Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
> I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I was missing the
> context, that fundamentally I did not understand what the result would
> be.
Yes, absolutely. Hopefully should be available by the end of
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Hello Russ,
Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I
Let's try this signed. Seconded
On 2021/11/26 12:35, Kyle Robbertze wrote:
On 2021/11/23 09:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but
On 2021/11/23 09:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst
Simon McVittie writes:
> Also a TC member but writing only on my own behalf. I agree with Gunnar
> that NOTA seems fine as a default for TC decisions (except for choosing
> the TC chair, which is special-cased to have no default).
Okay, sounds good. That's multiple people in support and no one
I've lost track of who wrote:
> > > Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> > > to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> > > decisions.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 10:28:55 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I would prefer the change to extend
Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800]:
> >>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
> >> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
> >> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
> >>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:00:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> > better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> >
Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:
>> Yes, indeed, no problem. Currently, I'm aware of only one correction
> I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :)
>> 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a
Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>> This is now at:
>>
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
> This is now at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
Thank you!
> I did not add any of the
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
This is now at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
Don Armstrong writes:
> Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?
Thanks to Wouter's work, here's a wdiff against the webwml of the current
constitution. This diff format makes a total hash of 6.3.1 and section A,
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/devel/constitution.wml
> (which is a version of the constitution with
Holger Levsen writes:
> I *believe* you'll find it in english/devel/constitution.wml in
> g...@salsa.debian.org:webmaster-team/webwml
> (*After* the GR when the change is actually going to be made please note
> that there are files like english/devel/constitution.1.$x.wml...)
Thank you!
--
I second this.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Section A
> > > -
> > >
> > > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> > >
> > > A.1.1.
* Wouter Verhelst: " Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)" (Tue,
23 Nov 2021 09:53:50 +0200):
> aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
Applies for me as well...
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> >
> > The Debian Dev
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > Section A
> > -
>
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> Section A
> -
>
> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>
> A.1.1. Strike the sentence "The maximum discussion
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:54AM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> Seconded.
Your message isn't signed.
Kurt
* Wouter Verhelst: " Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)" (Mon,
22 Nov 2021 17:15:34 +0200):
> Text of the GR
> ==
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This Gene
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 22/11/2021 at 16:15:34+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at
> 2021-11-22T16:15:27+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
> am looking for seconds.
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> Much
tl;dr: I second this.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Text of the GR
> ==
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> requires a 3:1 majority.
>
>
I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
am looking for seconds.
Rationale
=
Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this
amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different,
on purpose.
Our voting system, which
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
> constitution that I an start from? I assume it's somewhere in the
> www.debian.org machinery, which is something I've never worked with before
> and am not sure how
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> > specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?
> Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
> constitution that I an start from?
tl;dr: I second this.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Effect of the General Resolution
>
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
>>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
> of the resolution
Russ Allbery wrote on 20/11/2021 at 19:04:07+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at
> 2021-11-20T19:04:07+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require
Russ> a 3:1 majority, and am seeking sponsors.
I second your proposed GR regarding voting systems improvements and do
not object to the minor change Philip pointed out and you
Philip Hands writes:
> Although, I think you should fix A.2.3 which currently says:
>> ... sponsors stepping forward, it removed from the draft ballot.
>^
> which I'd suggest needs an 'is', or perhaps 'will be', between 'it' &
> 'removed'
Sigh, thank you.
Russ Allbery writes:
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
>
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
> process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
> ready to
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-20 10:04]:
I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Rationale
=
We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or
I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Rationale
=
We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
Resolution for vote:
* The timing
48 matches
Mail list logo
