InQuiero - Sistema de Soporte Online - Atención

[Security Essentials (The Watchdog)]

Title: InQuiero.com




 



















Inquiero.com / Solución de 
atención al usuario sin instalación para CONTROL 
REMOTO














 
 Control remoto seguro, rápido y 
fácil Incluye VoIP, transferencia de 
archivos y chat












 
 
Estimado   ,  

Con el fin de 
poder tener la oportunidad de presentarle la solución de 
Soporte Remoto InQuiero. Nos gustaría poder coordinar un 
día y una hora en la que podamos exponer este 
sistema.
Como referencia, 
InQuiero es una solución de soporte remoto basada en web, no 
necesita pre-instalación o configuración alguna, y es 
utilizada por los departamentos técnicos, de soporte, 
asistencia y atención al cliente para ayudar a los clientes. 
InQuiero es ideal para reducir los costos de soporte 
técnico.
Empresas como 
Honda, Deutsche Bank, Toshiba, Epson, Aspel entre otras, son ya 
clientes de la solución InQuiero. Beneficiamos directamente a 
empresas reduciendo sus costos de mantenimiento y soporte, al 
igual que incrementar la eficiencia en los operadores del call 
center. Podemos hacer lo mismo con su empresa ayudándole 
inmediatamente a reconocer su valor en:
 Reforzar su 
soporte técnico 

Reducir 
drásticamente costos en desplazamientos 

Reducir 
drásticamente sus tiempos de llamada y 
espera 
Definir y 
resolver problemas mucho más rápida y eficientemente vía 
acceso remoto 
Reducción de 
llamadas repetidas debidas al mismo 
problema 
Descenso en el 
escalado de llamadas 
Menor número de 
errores de soporte 
Mejora del 
servicio al cliente 
(externo e interno) 
Por 
favor, visite nuestra 
web en http://www.bemonitor.com.mx/inquiero.asp para aprender más 
acerca de nuestra empresa y solución. Aquí podrá probar la 
solución gratuitamente por 15 días en http://www.inquiero.com/inquiero/web/try.asp
 A la espera de 
poder hablar de InQuiero con usted prontamente, reciba un 
cordial saludo.
 Atentamente, 










Rafael 
Mosqueira 
México, D.F.
Tel. 
55.1042.5449  
Fax. 55.5341.7098 
  

Pablo 
Mosqueira
Monterrey, N.L.
Tel. 
81.8031.1187  
Fax. 81.8315.4504 
  


 

 







www.bemonitor.com.mx

inquiero.com

Number of candidates/re-election (was: Re: questions for all candidates)

[Anthony Towns]

Hrm, platforms seem to be up (mostly), so I guess that makes it "answer
questions" time.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:01:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 1. The past two years have seen higher numbers of candidates standing for DPL
>than in the past. [...] what do you think about having seven candidates in
>this election?

I think it's largely a good thing; though I think the vote software will need
some changes to cope with more than eight options, at least in its reporting.

>Is it a healthy thing that we have so many developers willing
>to sit in the hot seat, or is it a sign of fragmentation in the project
>and a lack of strong leadership?

There looks like there's a lot of commonality in many of the platforms;
so I don't think it's fragmentation. Personally, I'd rather have a bunch
of good people competing for every positon -- and I think if we can
maintain that level of interest and participation, even as we improve
other things and provide other ways to participate, it'll be very healthy.

> 2. If you are elected, do you currently think you would be interested in
>running for re-election next year?  Why or why not?

I expect so -- the details might change, but I expect Debian will still
be interesting then, and will still have problems I could help work on, so
my rationale would be the same.

Cheers,
aj




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Delegations (was: Re: question for all candidates)

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:18:55PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
> reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
> delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

There are two ways of looking at roles in Debian; as being "maintainer"
of a resource -- whether that be a package, or a web site, or a system,
or something else -- and as being a "delegate" of the DPL with specific
delegated powers.

Traditionally, maintainers have near absolute authority over their
resources, and get to choose who replaces them. Delegates, by contrast,
can be replaced by the DPL on a whim, though rarely are. Those are pretty
extreme differences, and it makes sense for people to prefer to be come
under the heading of "maintainer" in that it gives them more certainty
in fulfilling the role; and given DPLs have traditionally been fairly
reticent about managing delegations, it's also how things have tended
to work in practice.

In the end, I don't think the difference is that important -- whether your
a maintainer or a delegate, it's no good if you go crazy and start doing
horrible things. In so far as maintainers might do bad things with their
packages, we need some way to deal with that anyway, so worrying which roles
are under which heading doesn't seem that important.

So I tend to think the most sensible way of dividing the roles is to
basically say that people who need to use the name "Debian" -- that
is people representing Debian to other organisations, negotiating in
Debian's name, making press releases in Debian's name, or managing what's
available under the debian.org or debian.net domains -- are acting as
a delegate in so far as they're doing that; while people maintaining
resources, such as individual packages, the dak install on ftp-master,
or adminning machines are acting as maintainers.

That's obviously a subtle distinction sometimes -- declining to host
a service on a particular Debian box might normally be a maintainer's
decision, eg, but would impact a delegated decision in so far as it might
prevent that service from being available under the debian.org domain.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:53:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm not a candidate, but:
> There seems to be no question here at all.  The delegate status was
> always intended to cover (for example) the ftp administrators.

If that's what was intended (and that does reflect my recollection), it's
not what ended up happening. You can go all the way back to September '99
for support for the alternate view, look through the debian-private archives
for the message:

Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, there is a cabal.
Resent-Date: 16 Sep 1999 06:37:29 -
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I have heard some people claim that this is not the case and that
> somehow some of the teams like the release and ftp teams are not
> answerable to anyone.  This is patent nonsense.

Maintainers are answerable to the technical committee in a few ways
("decide on any matter of technical policy", "...any technical matter
where Developers' jurisdictions overlap", and "overrule a developer"),
presuming we don't decline to consider the issue on the grounds it's
insufficiently technical.

> Branden seemed to be suggesting that he would formally issue a
> statement saying that certain people were delegates.  I think that
> would have been a mistake.

One issue with delegations is that only grant extra powers, not extra
responsibilities. So when they're removed, only those extra powers
disappear... If they weren't needed in the first place, does that actually
provide any accountability?

Cheers,
aj


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- misleading statement

[Wesley J. Landaker]

Hi Debian Secretary and Leader,

At , it lists the text of the 
amendments. However, for Choice 3 there is a paragraph at the end that is 
not part of the amendment, but is placed and formated such that it appears 
to be. I think this is very inappropriate and I urge you to correct this as 
soon as possible.

Specifically, this part:
> We do not think that this requirement of GPL makes GPL covered programs
> non-free even though it can potentially make a GPL-covered program
> undistributable. Its purpose is against misuse of patents. Similarly, we
> do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the
> measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media.
>
> Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation document,
> namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. DFSG
> article 3 would need to be changed, or at least clarified. As it reads,
> it states that licenses a work is available under must allow
> modifications of the work.

This is very misleading, as there is no line break, heading, or any other 
kind of formatting change or delineation that makes it clear this is 
comment from you the secretary than part of the original proposal.

Also, this paragraph is redundant because there is a section just a few 
lines later called "Majority Requirement" where it already asserts this 3:1 
requirement.

I think this really needs to be cleared up, as it is very misleading and 
seems to imply that the _proposal itself_ stated that it needed a 3:1 
majority and requires a DFSG change, which is completely opposite what the 
amendment actually states.

Thanks.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgp7zqAPm0f8D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Raul Miller]

[On 2/27/06, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the way these choices are proposed to you is misleading, I have
> to sent this specifying message to you all.

Without passing judgement, I'll note that a statement like this demands
well stated proof.

[...eliding background material...]

> When you vote, please understand, that the whole point of my proposal
> is that GFDL is compatible with the current text of DFSG.  That is -
> with proper reading of DFSG, GFDL is compatible with our current
> guidelines.

This seems a formal statement of the issue which needs to be proven.

> The third rule of DFSG says: "The license must allow modifications and
> derived works".  At first sight it seams that "must allow
> modifications" means that the license must allow us to make arbitrary
> modifications.  As a matter of fact this interpretation is impossible
> because according to it even GPL would be a non-free license (please
> refer to my proposal for an explanation).

This looks like an argument that the GFDL does not conflict with
section 3 of the DFSG.

Without passing judgement, I'll note that this does not address
the other sections of the DFSG.



Here's my opinion:

First off, I've left out a lot of Anton Zinoviev's post.  Frankly, I think a
lot of it (including what I see as smear attacks on Manoj Srivastava)
is irrelevant.

I see a conflict between what Anton has said here and the obvious meaning
of the DFSG -- not section 3 taken alone, but taking into account section
4 as well.

And since this section 4 convlict has been raised, repeatedly, I think that
if anyone was serious about addressing it there would be a page describing
the issue -- in concise overview, and in detail -- and I think people would be
posting links to that page.

I think I would be in favor of a well thought out proposal for improving
the DFSG -- one that starts with the goals and issues it attempts to
address and works from there.  (As I remember it, that's how the DFSG
was originally written -- as I remember it, Debian was having problems with
software that potentially couldn't be ported and there were also concerns
about the need for security fixes and other sorts of maintenance.)

But I don't think that we gain anything by trying to pretend the DFSG says
anything other than what it says.

I don't think that GRs would be useful if we had to change the truth
to properly understand them.

--
Raul

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Helen Faulkner said:
> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > The Project Secretary is the author of the text that was used as a
> > basis for the proposal in Choice 1.  Of course as a sympathiser of a
> > position somewhat opposite to my position it comes natural to him to
> > try to oppose my proposal[2].  Nevertheless during the discussions in
> > debian-vote he made some statements that make me think very seriously
> > whether he is ruling conscientiously his office as Project Secretary
> > and whether he is taking illegally advantage of his position.  As an
> > illustration, please read the following quotation:
> > 
> > 
> >>   Thankfully, Debian is not a democracy. We may vote on some
> >>   issues, but that does not mean we are a democratically run
> >>   organisation. The powers of various offices is spelled out in the
> >>   constitution.
> >>
> >>   In this specific case, I am not going to let the spectre of
> >>   democracy spur me into doing something I consider wrong. In a true
> >>   democracy, I would either do what my constituency required even if
> >>   I thought it wrong, or resign.  In Debian, I am permitted to do
> >>   what I think is right, in as unbiased a manner as I can, until I
> >>   am removed from my post.
> 
> What is the source of this and your other quotation from the Debian Project
> Secretary?   I can't find the post on debian-vote.

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/10820

HTH,
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Helen Faulkner]

Anton Zinoviev wrote:

[...]

> The Project Secretary is the author of the text that was used as a
> basis for the proposal in Choice 1.  Of course as a sympathiser of a
> position somewhat opposite to my position it comes natural to him to
> try to oppose my proposal[2].  Nevertheless during the discussions in
> debian-vote he made some statements that make me think very seriously
> whether he is ruling conscientiously his office as Project Secretary
> and whether he is taking illegally advantage of his position.  As an
> illustration, please read the following quotation:
> 
> 
>>   Thankfully, Debian is not a democracy. We may vote on some
>>   issues, but that does not mean we are a democratically run
>>   organisation. The powers of various offices is spelled out in the
>>   constitution.
>>
>>   In this specific case, I am not going to let the spectre of
>>   democracy spur me into doing something I consider wrong. In a true
>>   democracy, I would either do what my constituency required even if
>>   I thought it wrong, or resign.  In Debian, I am permitted to do
>>   what I think is right, in as unbiased a manner as I can, until I
>>   am removed from my post.

What is the source of this and your other quotation from the Debian Project
Secretary?   I can't find the post on debian-vote.

If it was a private message, I would like to know whether Manoj was writing
personally or in his "Debian Project Secretary" persona.

Personally, I am glad that people holding important posts in Debian are willing
to do what they think is right, and I am especially glad if they actively try to
 do their job in as unbiased a manner as possible.  Anything less would be a
failure of the trust we place in them.

Helen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:21:00PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> 
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 25a628e9-d88e-40b7-8e1c-888cff421ea5
> [   ] Choice 1: GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
> [   ] Choice 2: GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
> [   ] Choice 3: GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
> [   ] Choice 4: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hi all,

Since the way these choices are proposed to you is misleading, I have
to sent this specifying message to you all.

I am the proposer of Choice 3.  According to the Constitution of Debian
a supermajority of 3:1 is required for decisions that change a
Foundation Document (DFSG in particular).  According to the Project
Secretary my proposal changes DFSG and thats why he added the comment
[needs 3:1].

When you vote, please understand, that the whole point of my proposal
is that GFDL is compatible with the current text of DFSG.  That is -
with proper reading of DFSG, GFDL is compatible with our current
guidelines.

Of course, it is possible to include in the voting procedure a choice
that GFDL is a free license and because of that DFSG have to be
corrected.  However my proposal [1] is not that.  I think the text of
my proposal makes completely clear that its whole point is that GFDL
is compatible with the current text of DFSG.

I hope that with this message I have corrected somewhat the procedural
mistake of the Project Secretary so the voting procedure is not
completely compromised.  My proposal is not what the Project Secretary
proposed to you as third choice.

Since many of you have not followed the discussions in debian-vote I
am taking the opportunity to explain some things.

The Project Secretary is the author of the text that was used as a
basis for the proposal in Choice 1.  Of course as a sympathiser of a
position somewhat opposite to my position it comes natural to him to
try to oppose my proposal[2].  Nevertheless during the discussions in
debian-vote he made some statements that make me think very seriously
whether he is ruling conscientiously his office as Project Secretary
and whether he is taking illegally advantage of his position.  As an
illustration, please read the following quotation:

>Thankfully, Debian is not a democracy. We may vote on some
>issues, but that does not mean we are a democratically run
>organisation. The powers of various offices is spelled out in the
>constitution.
>
>In this specific case, I am not going to let the spectre of
>democracy spur me into doing something I consider wrong. In a true
>democracy, I would either do what my constituency required even if
>I thought it wrong, or resign.  In Debian, I am permitted to do
>what I think is right, in as unbiased a manner as I can, until I
>am removed from my post.

Let me explain in short why according to me the reading of DFSG that
makes GFDL a free license is more than a possible reading -- it is the
only reasonable reading.

The third rule of DFSG says: "The license must allow modifications and
derived works".  At first sight it seams that "must allow
modifications" means that the license must allow us to make arbitrary
modifications.  As a matter of fact this interpretation is impossible
because according to it even GPL would be a non-free license (please
refer to my proposal for an explanation).

With the help of Richard Stallman I could propose an interpretation of
DFSG that explains what the words "must allow modifications" should
mean [3].  In debian-vote I asked the supporters of the other choices
to explain what their interpretation of DFSG is.  So far nobody could
tell another reasonable interpretation of DFSG that makes GPL a free
license.  This is why I am still considering my interpretation of DFSG
as the only possible interpretation.

Of course an alternative opinion is also possible - the opinion that
GPL is a non-free license that contradicts the rules of DFSG and the
only reason we accept it as a free license is that DFSG explicitly
lists GPL as a free license.  It is somewhat strange, but there are
Debian developers that hold this position.  One of them is our Project
Secretary.  Please read the following quotation:

>So, the DFSG are what they say they are -- guidelines. However,
>some licenses were deemed by the project to be de-facto free, even
>if they do contravene some of the guidelines, hence explicitly
>naming the GPL and the bsd licenses. The naming them specifically
>removes the requirement that they meet all the guidelines.
>
>But this does not automatically mean that the dispensation
>offered to the GPL automatically extends to any other license --
>we would need to list any licenses like that explicitly, or modify
>the guidelines to not conflict.

While you are d

Re: Nomination

[Ian Jackson]

Mario Lang writes ("Re: Nomination"):
> Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:02:11AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > [something]
> >
> > I find that response utterly inappropriate. It would be inappropriate
> > even during the campaign.
> 
> I guess we are reaching new heights of censorship and
> removal of freedom of speech in Debian this year.

I object in the strongest possible terms !  How dare you deprive
Joerg of his freedom of speech !  You are censoring him by telling him
he must not say this or that thing !

For the hard of comprehension: this is a parody.  I'm pointing out
that criticising an utterence, or describing it as inappropriate, is
not censorship.  If it would be, then criticising that kind censorship
would itself be censorship.

Or, in summary: Get A Grip !

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: question for all candidates

[Ian Jackson]

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes ("question for all candidates"):
> So, to the question:
> Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
> reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
> delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

I'm not a candidate, but:

There seems to be no question here at all.  The delegate status was
always intended to cover (for example) the ftp administrators.  The
practical effect of this is that the Leader can fire (say) the release
manager.

I have heard some people claim that this is not the case and that
somehow some of the teams like the release and ftp teams are not
answerable to anyone.  This is patent nonsense.

Of course, the Leader should not needlessly annoy any of the delegate
teams.  For example, Branden said:
 `[the previous] project leader doesn't feel that the delegation
  process in our Constitution is the way Debian really works. He
  characterized a refusal to make delegates of the archive
  administrators, system administrators, and so forth as "pragmatic".'

I think the right way to interpret this is to see that many of the
people who do not agree about the constitutional position are doing a
good job anyway, and there is no need to rub their noses in it or
force them to lose a political battle.

Branden seemed to be suggesting that he would formally issue a
statement saying that certain people were delegates.  I think that
would have been a mistake.

The Leader should leave the situation in limbo unless they intend to
fire the current incumbents and have volunteers to replace them.  And
of course they should only do that if the incumbents need replacing,
which I don't think is currently the case with any of the teams I'm
aware of.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Nomination

[Mario Lang]

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:02:11AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 10576 March 1977, Ted Walther wrote:
>> > I nominate myself for DPL in this 2006 election.
>> 
>> You havent learned from the worst-result of a DPL candidate ever?
>> Even "None of the above" was better than you.
>
> I find that response utterly inappropriate. It would be inappropriate
> even during the campaign.

I guess we are reaching new heights of censorship and
removal of freedom of speech in Debian this year.

I found the response utterly appropriate.

-- 
CYa,
  Mario


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Appeal to candidate questioners

[David Schmitt]

Am Montag, 27. Februar 2006 12:25 schrieb MJ Ray:
> Last year, we had very helpful debate summaries posted by
> David Schmitt(?) which helped solve this confusion, but I don't
> know whether anyone will prepare similar ones this year.

I hear you :)

Since last years summaries where quite work intensive, I'll try to come up 
with some XML/XSLT voodoo to help me with the task. Expect a notice within 
the next days.


Regards, David
-- 
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
 -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Enrico Zini]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:42:51PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:

> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ops, mistake.
Which in a way was good because I noticed a mistake in my choice.  So I
now resubmitted the vote, with corrections, to the right address :)


Ciao,

Enrico who had thought he had waken up already, but found out that he hadn't

-- 
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

[Enrico Zini]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:21:00PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 25a628e9-d88e-40b7-8e1c-888cff421ea5
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
> [ 4 ] Choice 4: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ciao,

Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Appeal to candidate questioners

[MJ Ray]

Please, if you email questions of the candidates, put something in
the subject line to indicate the subject(s) of the questions. It
will make it much easier to find them in the archives.

Last year, we had very helpful debate summaries posted by
David Schmitt(?) which helped solve this confusion, but I don't
know whether anyone will prepare similar ones this year.

Optimisticly,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Nomination

[MJ Ray]

Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What's specifically is inappropriate about publically stating one's
> opinion of a candidate, whether positive or negative, after being
> nominated for the position?

IMO it was inappropriate because it was mostly a personal attack
and said nothing about why to disagree with the candidate's
policies. Arguably, it's on-topic, because there's an element
of personality in selecting the DPL, but it adds little info.

When the platforms are posted, we should be able to make our
own decisions about whether [EMAIL PROTECTED] has learned
from last year or not.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

question for all candidates

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Heya,

Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from 2004
last year (when he was elected), but it seems that nothing has happened
since then.

So, to the question:
Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

Marc

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/branden#s2p4
-- 
BOFH #72:
Satan did it


pgp10kmKJyX2W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

questions for all candidates

[Steve Langasek]

The campaign period is open according to
, so here are two questions for all
of the candidates.

1. The past two years have seen higher numbers of candidates standing for DPL
   than in the past.  While our voting system has no problem scaling to seven
   candidates, comments I've heard from a number of developers suggest that
   a high number of candidates makes it more difficult for voters to
   navigate the ballot and cast informed votes.  I'm sure when platforms are
   posted you'll tell us why each of you believes that you personally should
   run, but what do you think about having seven candidates in this
   election?  Is it a healthy thing that we have so many developers willing
   to sit in the hot seat, or is it a sign of fragmentation in the project
   and a lack of strong leadership?

2. If you are elected, do you currently think you would be interested in
   running for re-election next year?  Why or why not?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature