On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
--
Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that the process
defined in GR Proposal 2 will be applied *only* for the future content
of debian-private mailing list.
--
To me, it's a second option that would make
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:32:59AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a diff from AJ's proposal. I am now formally seeking
seconds for this modified proposal, which has explicit guidelines for
the most common case for not wantng the posts to be published.
Seconded.
Hi there,
If you were elected tomorrow as DPL, and could only pick one thing about
Debian to change, what would it be?
Cheers,
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:59:49AM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
#dplteam2006:
stockholm - the littel oppinon poll that i did (asking ~30-40 people)
was totally overwealming: everyone but mjg would have been
in favour [of the proposed GR to force people into
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:57:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a company holds money on behalf of Debian and they don't charge
Debian with taxes that is fine imo as the Debian-money is not touched by
taxes in that case.
I disagree. There are also
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:34:09AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunk-Tank, lead
by
Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge.
However, this
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Given the difficulty of finding a common ground about the non-free firmware
issue, the Debian Project does resolve that :
1) We allow inclusion in Debian Etch of all firmwares currently shipped in
the
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
The debian project resolves that :
1) We recognizes that there are many uncleared issues with the
current binary firmware files in linux kernel.
2) We will not ship a kernel package
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:17:44PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian infrastructure and portions thereof are not analogous to
packages. As many have pointed out already, packages can be NMUed.
Note that if you can get SPI to transfer the debian.org
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:58:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? AIUI, the DPL
is appointed as an adviser to SPI's board, not a veto.
Further
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:20:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens to
the DPL, not the project?
I'll extract the exact line from
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
Maybe it is just a linguistic problem. Is it last that you find
offensive or is it measure?
Was that a purposeful attempt to dodge the GNAA question, or did you not
I second the proposal below.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:41:35PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, 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.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:25:39PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
If some kind person would email debian-devel-announce on Sunday
March 9th 00:01 UTC, and announce that the nomination period is over, I
would appreciate it.
Will do.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Tincho 'Maybe you can
|
+--+
Regards,
Neil McGovern, pp
Manoj
--
jmtd irssiproxy appears to be crack cut with washing up powder
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
stagnate again in future.
Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
directly?
I suggest
a week (so 4 weeks after this version), I'll
assume it's dead.
Thanks,
Neil McGovern
--
Erik_J good day! i hear this might be a good place to get some technical
advice when one is debian eliterate :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:06:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote
Hi,
The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
resolution is:
--
- Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
debian-devel-announce
mailing list
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:31:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That makes 1 proposer + 6 seconders = 7 sponsors for that GR. We would
need 3 more for the decisions to be put on hold immediately.
A seconder is a sponsor, so you'd need 4 more. The original proposer
cannot also sponsor the item:
Hi all,
As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
as per 4.2.2 of the constitution.
Attached below is the draft ballot for
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
[ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
[ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi all,
As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:11:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
Votes must be received
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
[ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.
You have a total of 3 times proceedural instead
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
[ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
[ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
I don't
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
as per 4.2.2
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:09:14PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:35:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
Votes must
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:21:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ]
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
|
| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:22:14PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:11:27PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
I therefore invite the people who like it to sponsor it by the end of the
week.
Can you/someone give a msgid/url to that proposal please?!
Message-Id:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On the contrary. It is excess of overlapping options that prompt for
strategic
voting. For example, if I don't care much between option A and option B, but
prefer either of them to option C
So, your opinion would be
ABC
112
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 04:50:14PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:56:06AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On the contrary. It is excess of overlapping options that prompt for
strategic
voting
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with the previous decision-making body, in this
case the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: text/plain;
Hello DPL,
'General Resolution: Project membership procedures' has been called to
vote. Due to the previous perceived urgency of this I ask you to shorten
the voting period to one week as per 4.2.3 of our constitution.
Many thanks,
Neil McGovern
--
No matter whether you use charcoal or pine
Hi all,
Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply
ASAP.
Thanks,
Neil
==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Thursday, 4th Dec 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:01:36PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or
concensus.
[ ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concensus
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:44:32AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Hi all,
Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply
ASAP.
Hi Neil
The vote page has three mutually exclusive texts
Apologies for the delay in the start of this vote, it's the first time
that devotee has been used by a different user, and some last minute
bugs appeared.
So, without further ado:
This is the first call for votes for vote_002: General Resolution:
Project membership procedures. Note that voting
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:09:33PM +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote:
First and last call for vote since it is only one week...
So please, send a reminder in thursday/friday.
Will do.
Neil
--
Erik_J good day! i hear this might be a good place to get some technical
advice when one is
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:35:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In the future, it would be wonderful to have the short summaries
used in the ballot reported in the vote page, possibly as titles of
the various sections.
Added, should appear after the propogation delay.
Neil
--
automake:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:33:15PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
Choice 1 - Amendment A
Choice 2 - Main Resolution
Choice 3 - Amendment B
Until the webpages update, I can confirm that this reading of the
options is correct.
Neil
--
* toresbe wonders what would happen if Ted Walther and
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Monday 8th Dec 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday,14th Dec 2008
Please note
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:34:09PM +0100, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
Neil McGovern a écrit :
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
I voted 2 days ago (Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:12:55 +0100) but did
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:26:08AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:57:06AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
Probably because noone
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:15:28AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my
vote?
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100
Message-Id: 200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl
Looks like the multi-user multi-voterunners multi-votes bug.
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
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
snip
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:50:52AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Other potential usages of Debian moneys are bounties, to which I'm not
opposed in principle. However, they should obey to very specific
rules. The first one is that no one already contributing to Debian
should be authorized to
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment:
AMENDMENT START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.
Neil
--
vorlon We
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.
Neil
--
pixie hermanr_: I never studied german
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:14:10AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Forking devotee at this point seems to serve little purpose,
given that upstream is not hostile.
Given that the secretary team haven't heared of these patches (AFAIK),
the mention of 'forking' is a bit of a
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 07:56:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The whole vote is to come up with a recommendation for the
decision makers
And should the decision makers not follow that recommendation, the
flamewars will truely begin.
The format and phrasing of this is:
The Debian
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:36:05AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Lastly, for the meaning of ‘accusatory’, perhaps I could have found a
better word? But I am not a native speaker. What I mean is that if in
one message, somebody writes ‘you want this [bad thing]’ or ‘you did
not do that [good
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:45:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:10:23PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself (I already said it in an answer to
Charles' GR proposal), these core values are also what all DDs agreed to
abide by. If Charles doesn't
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
requirements to the others? What happens when the secretary and the
proposer disagree about
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:47:49PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Neil
McGovern wrote:
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. You may rank options equally (as
long as all choices X you make are 1 or 2).
Please make
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:25:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk writes:
Yes, it would. And so would expecting people to read the mail. Given
that there were a number (28?) sent before voting peoriod started, I'm
not convinced that people will actually do
Hi,
This is a second call for votes for GR: Debian project members
The timeline is:
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Tuesday, 5th Oct 2010
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Monday, 18th Oct 2010
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution on Project's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:13:38AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But I've learned that we need to communicate this a whole lot better. Ideas
how
... would be best directed to debian-project :)
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key -
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Also, I think the CoC is wrong in making policy about who to send
replies to. Some people actually prefer getting replies, while others
don't. Since there's a header that nicely allows you to specify just
that, I think a more
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:50:59AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Is there any other policies that you disagree with,
No.
and would you be looking to change any of these as DPL?
Not without first trying to achieve consensus.
I'm slightly confused by my being copied in to your reply
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:58:04AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
I really should not be writing this. I should be sleeping.
I have to get up for work in less than six hours. But I
*really* would love to know a DD vote outcome on something
like the below text, though written with less sarcasm,
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:02:06AM +, Moray Allan wrote:
I nominate myself as a prospective DPL for the 2013 election.
Thanks, received and is a valid nomination.
Neil
(as Assistant Secretary)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 09:44:32AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx secret...@debian.org writes:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
*clears throat*
I hereby nominate myself as a
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think I would generally be fine about an informational message in
Debian Project News about an fundraising campaign for something that
clearly benefits Debian. Btw, in the specific example of your book, have
you considered
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
Assuming Debian keyring refers to the package debian-keyring (which should
be a reasonable safe assumption, right?)
This assumption is incorrect: the Debian keyring is defined by devotee
for the leader2013 vote as:
cat
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
Hi Wouter,
Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
case in the first place? Could
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
users. So the
On 2 Mar 2014, at 13:36, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm very wary about passing resolutions which require work from future
persons unidentified. Presumeably it would need a person who is a) keen
on the desktop system
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
Neil
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
And here's those amendments.
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole
Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of
being a whole
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
So I've put up a vote page with my
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
==
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:19:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I
create 2 options?
Wouter, please don't accept Neil's second amendment (the one
disallowing modification by the
Hi Wouter,
On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
After some consideration, I accept this amendment.
Thank you very much :)
Amendment B
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 06:47:24PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
Hi Kurt,
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
Dear DSA, until the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify
paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
ol
liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the
Hi Lars,
Thanks for kicking off the questions this year!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:49:41PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
For all DPL candidates:
We have a number of delegated teams. How detailed should the
delegations be?
I've written my view of the constitution in quite a detailed post
Hi Sylvestre,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
* Are you allowed by your employer to work during the week on DPL tasks
or is it something that you are going to do on your free time?
A bit of both. Collabora allows for a certain percentage of time to be
spent
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:11:27PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Contrary to what Lars says, I think there is a clear difference
between these two approaches. ISTM that Lucas is much more hands-on
and (for example) and takes much more of a close interest in the
processes adopted by teams, than
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:42, Filippo Rusconi lopi...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:10:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While I understand the question, I'm not sure this is very relevant.
Yes, Debian is about
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:37, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:27:11PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
However, Debian is not a cult.
Indeed not. We are a clan. Which inspires my next question.
Hi Hector,
On 14 Mar 2014, at 13:25, Hector Oron zu...@debian.org wrote:
Hello DPL candidates,
First of all congratulations for your nominations. I have several
questions for you, I hope you do not mind to reply:
Thanks for your question, it’s good to see a DSA member engaging with the
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
To the candidates,
Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:23:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
would it be desirable?
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of aspects to this, one from an external
Hi Ana!
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
DebConf is one of the biggest expenses of Debian, every year we look
for sponsorship and we had (and have) sponsors who were sponsoring
DebConf as a way of giving their annual donation to Debian and
not necessarily
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
