-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Igor Genibel wrote:
| On Monday 21 March 2005 00:24, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
|
|HOW TO VOTE
[...]
|Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters
|() that your reply inserts. NOTE:
Hi
John Goerzen wrote:
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
You should mail it signed, but not encrypted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] You might have the same problem [0] as some
others [1] [2] [3]. You'll be listed [4] as a unique voter [5] if your
vote arrives.
Cheers
Luk
[0]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Osamu Aoki wrote:
| Hi,
Hi Osamu
| I have a technical question on how to vote for the DPL voting system for
| the following example:
|
| | Suppose there are 3 candidates:
| | * Mr. good
| | * Mr. unsuitable
| | * Mr. bad
| | Basically I want only
of seconding dato's proposal, but I believe that
Debian is also in a position to make the world a better place by
asking upstreams to rethink. Or am I being completely naïve here?
You can second a proposal without voting for it if you just want to have
it on the ballot!
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes
Hi DPL candidates
Would you also try to reach the goals mentioned in your platform if you
wouldn't be elected DPL?
Please be specific if you think one of your goals can't be reached or
helped with without being a DPL or a member of the DPL team.
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes - http
Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 10:08:22AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
Hi DPL candidates
Would you also try to reach the goals mentioned in your platform if you
wouldn't be elected DPL?
Please be specific if you think one of your goals can't be reached or
helped with without being
it is not intended for. The tone of the
messages was something that made it clear that you were not going to stop
sending such mails to the list...
Cheers
Luk
PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very
clever when you just get unbanned...
--
Luk Claes - http
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now
was long awaited already and he would
probably have sent it independent of running for DPL or not.
In the end it's probably just MJ Ray campaigning for Steve by making that line
more visible to the voters...
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi Sven
As you are suspended for one year, your proposal is not valid according to [1]
as your key is not in the keyring.
Please stop pestering us with this childish behaviour. It's not because you
make you very difficult to work with and as a result loose some priviliges
that every DD should
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:57:54PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Hi Sven
As you are suspended for one year, your proposal is not valid according to
[1]
as your key is not in the keyring.
I don't recognize the suspension as valid, and furthermore, if enough DD
second the GR
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch.
Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-]
Marc Haber wrote:
What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
Do you plan to post regular bits from the DPL, and which measures
will you implement to prevent a failure similiar to the failures of
your predecessors?
You seem to value visibility more than
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:49:22 +0100, Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:15:36PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
The last time we had such a low turn out was in 2001, and then we
only had less than one third the number of developers.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:58:34 +0200, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You can express your opinions on this list without any problem, though
your opinion should not be expressed in an official reminder to vote
Why not? I hold these opinions about
Joey Hess wrote:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
I, too, think that the quoted sentence above from Manoj is just plain
inappropriate in a message sent with the Secreatary hat on.
I personally, don't belive in this hat concept that seems to have
infested the project. When I write a mail, *I* am writing
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
| (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
| majority)
`
Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian
is more than the releases
Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
for it?
That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
Only if the blob is not the actual source, no?
Cheers
Luk
--
To
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the release team is
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
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Seems liek there was plenty of time to change things, and add
some
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
have made this whole conflict easier to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
that an option
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents. While I have always thought that
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
Hmm, I thought you were going
Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Steve, Luk and Stefano,
Hi Charles
thank you very much for the time and efforts you are proposing to dedicate to
the Project !
Our Consitution suggests a stronger leadership of the DPL the discussions:
9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
The
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:39:38PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
snip
What I would do if the times will come, is to get in
Joseph Nahmias wrote:
Hello Steve, Luk, and Zack!
Hi Joseph
Having just particpated in the latest SPI board meeting, I've learned
that The Debian Project currently has over 125k USD in reserve. This
amount (even setting aside the recent 30k debconf9 sponsorship by HP)
seems to be at a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Joseph Nahmias wrote:
1 - What is an appropriate reserve level for the project?
2 - How should funds above that level be allocated?
3 - Should these decisions be made by the DPL acting alone, or
should that be left to
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:24:29PM +, Joseph Nahmias wrote:
2 - How should funds above that level be allocated?
Other potential usages of Debian moneys are bounties, to which I'm not
opposed in principle. However, they should obey to very specific
rules.
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
much. Oh well... :-)
Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
What's your opinion on membership procedures?
Last year there
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2009-03-22 kello 17:01 +0100, Luk Claes kirjoitti:
I think we first have to think about what a member, if we need different
types of access/members and what they would be before thinking about the
process(es) to become a member. I do think for instance
MJ Ray wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Dear Steve and Luk,
Hi Lucas
So, you are running in tandem. How do you plan to organize the sharing
of the DPL workload?
I think we'll try to spread the workload depending on the circumstances
of the moment.
Will Steve be The DPL, with Luk only helping on some
Hi
As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
firmware. Users and press are complaining that their servers don't have
network anymore after an upgrade or that their notebooks cannot be
installed
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle,
Hi all,
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03
Hi
There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any
vote to clarify:
Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
Matthew Johnson wrote:
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.
[...]
So I don't really see what we
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
examlpes. I'm maybe not using
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
practical consensus between the needs of our users and the needs of
the free
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess you mean in 'main'?
Debian is only free
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
document is the previous option.
What would you call the vote to ship non-free software
Bill Allombert wrote:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
with it remotely through a computer
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
H Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org
According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and
all
its
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG
non-freeness, people that want to leave the project?
For the record, I will not answer in this thread to other posts that are
insulting
On 03/17/2012 06:46 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 09:01:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In some cases, of course, that isn't the case, and then things get
somewhat more complex. A good example on that is the systemd
On 10/16/2014 11:07 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
vote to some other place?
Do you really think anyone will feel that their contribution was not
relevant for the vote?
Anyway, is someone willing to propose an option that would postpone
57 matches
Mail list logo
