All candidates: Membership procedures
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 were some rough proposals for how to change the membership procedures. It started with Joerg's proposal, but other people suggested their own kinds of changes, including me. I feel that my approach and Joerg's are pretty much diametrically opposed. What's your opinion? Do you feel the current NM process works well and almost always selects for the kind of people that are really great for Debian? Would some other kind of process work better? What kind of membership process would you like to see in Debian in, say, a year from now? Please feel free to dream, there's no point in being too constricted by reality and practical considerations. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
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 pick them up (no dunc-tank 2). The second one is that they should be used only for tasks that we have a history of not being able to fulfill by ourselves, and that are considered blocking for some needed Project improvements. Except I'm not sure this would be legal under non-profit law, unless you're very careful. There's an issue that funds can't be used to pay someone the equivilent of a 'wage' in this way. Donations must go into a central pot, and can't be specified for bounty #263 for example. I would suggest asking for legal advice if you you want to persue this, I can try and dig out the previous stuff we got as well. Neil -- gwolf bah Germans. You just put 100 DDs in one country and then they all become friends of each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
Hi, On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk, Hi again Charles! I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance: Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our default. First of all, I would be interested to know if it is a point of divergence between the candidates. Then, if there is interest for such a discussion, I would like to encourage you to develop your ideas on this subject, especially on what you can do as a DPL or DPL assistant. I'm very much a fan of people working together on their packages, but I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to make teams the default. If I think for the vast majority of packages in our archive this would simply be overkill. But I'm interested what you think about the following: In Debian we have some packages that are either by default on every system or are commonly expected to be found on Debian systems. Such tools could be called the core of our system, because they are most commonly used on a Debian system. Such packages include coreutils, gzip, grep, hostname, initscripts, obviously all the tools that make up a Debian system like dpkg, at, cron and some more. Short said: More or less all packages with a priority of Standard or higher, although one would need to think about this scope wrt to the following proposal. Some of these packages are very well maintained and others.. well, bug numbers sometimes speak for themselves. For these packages we have that cool text on the PTS pages: The package is of priority standard or higher, you should really find some co-maintainers. which brought me on this at all. What I thought about when I read that is: HaHaHa, we are kidding on us own, because we recommend something to us, what should actually be the default (for this type of packages). Thats why I thought it would eventually be a good idea to form a core team, meaning a team of a bunch of people (10-20?), with wide-spread knowledge and known to have enough free time (e.g. people who have 50 packages and aren't able to keep up with the bug reports in their own packages wouldn't qualify) that gets the job to (co-)maintain all these packages that are very important to us. It doesn't mean that the existing maintainers are taken away the packages, because they could still stay the maintainers, but obviously some of these packages are not easily maintainable by one person. What do you think about such a proposal? Best Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question for all candidates about http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny
Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit : I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that? [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny Hi Steve, First I plan to produce a document that presents the proposal whith avoiding misunderstandings, and to present it when the issues on top of the list will have been solved. I will not jump the queue. Then the first issue is programmatic: the Debian Menu is managed by some software written in C, and I am not a C programmer. So the goal of the kick-off discussion will not only be to get a broad consensus that using the fd.o format is good, but also to convince somebody to write the code. I think that the main argument for the proposal is that after swithching to a widespread format, we can submit Upstream the fd.o menu entries that can be used as is (and I really think that it will be the majority), which would be a nice contribution from Debian to the communauty, and would also reduce the complexity of our packages and in the end reduce our workload (especially now that we have triggers). Then goes the hard work: bug reporting, acceptance of the switch by DDs, writing a Lintian check, submitting entries in Upstream BTSes, subitting patches in our BTS, commiting patches in some VCSes,… I hope that by the time all of this is started, the discussions on the quality of our archive will have beared fruits and that we will be less shy removing packages that are obviously unmaintained and that nowbody wants to adopt. Last year I reviewed the debtags of ~100 packages in one month and a half; this makes me confident that if I have a few monthes plus some help, I can fuel perseverance and get the transition done. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Hi, I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5 supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000 Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work. While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30 supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth taking up time of everyone else. Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal. As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a Keep it like it is, no discusssion is needed, I would accept such an amendment too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still). - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314 this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now), considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or a Delegate. -- bye, Joerg * libpng2 no libpng3 no why ? because no yes no yes no yes bullshit no yes no yes no yes stop ? no when someday beep beep beep beep (Closes: #157011) -- Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:41:58 +0200 pgpUDbLd85ZRf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Hi, and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of floor(Q) developers to second a GR. PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314 this will mean that future GRs would need 15 other people to support your idea. -- bye, Joerg Could you please add me to the mirr...@debian.org alias. I'm not receiving enough spam. -- Andrew Pollock pgpt8bg5lg3r9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat Mar 21 15:49, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I second this proposal -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. That makes an interesting race condition with Bill's overriding GR… -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:04:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. That makes an interesting race condition with Bill's overriding GR… Dear all, dear Joerg, I present my apologise and ask you to forgive me this post. There are many discussions going in all directions and I it frustrates me strongly, but I should have keept my head cold and my hands far from the keyboard. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END It would be nice if this also included the proposed changes to the constitution as a diff. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5 supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was smaller, I think it is no longer the case. Perfectly agree. While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30 supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth taking up time of everyone else. I think this is a problem, though. Not that debating over an arbitrary number is a good idea, but the number of developers as used for quorum calculation is not a good reference, IMHO, for the sheer fact that the DDs actually voting make up a rather small fraction of the total. There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. -- Guilherme de S. Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of floor(Q) developers to second a GR. PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314 this will mean that future GRs would need 15 other people to support your idea. Seconded. - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknFFbsACgkQBnqtBMk7/3lbkwCfQeX4xVMe+qDmGDMt5W9wyRrj SLYAn0AhYp1odc/zA57n1yHudTTs1wWI =WVtl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Hi, as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - I am looking for seconds. If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote: If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. And for additional info: http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. That would be sick. And using the official DD count does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define something special now, in fear of people wont vote. -- bye, Joerg NM-fun: The Debian project, at least for me, is not a joke, [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Hi, On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I hereby second the before standing proposal. With some kind of sadness, because if we wouldn't waste that much time on useless proposals that I consider this a problem, I wouldn't. Best Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: sponsorship of Debian development by companies?
On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you encourage a similar position for bounties offered as part of the Google Summer of Code, for example? No. Who is picked in the end should depend on the terms of the scheme involved and on the quality of the particular projects. In the specific example of the GSoC, I'm much more interested in the likelihood of the student project to succeed than in who the student is. That's interesting, especially with your role of GSOC admin for Debian. Let's imagine that a random company contacted you (as DPL) and said: I'll give you enough money to pay 10 DDs during 2 months to work on Debian ; you are free to choose who gets the jobs, and what people will work on. It's not totally unrealistic: it's what Google does with GSOC (except that they impose that those who get the job are students, and that they reserve the right to reject specific projects/students). What would be your position? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote: If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. And for additional info: http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256 Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a method. I'm very sad. Even if I would agree with any of you on the copyright topic, I couldn't ever agree with this behaviour. Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Hi! Joerg Jaspert schrieb: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I hereby second the proposal quoted above. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: All candidates: Membership procedures
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:57AM +0200, 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 were some rough proposals for how to change the membership procedures. It started with Joerg's proposal, but other people suggested their own kinds of changes, including me. I feel that my approach and Joerg's are pretty much diametrically opposed. What's your opinion? Do you feel the current NM process works well and almost always selects for the kind of people that are really great for Debian? Would some other kind of process work better? What kind of membership process would you like to see in Debian in, say, a year from now? Please feel free to dream, there's no point in being too constricted by reality and practical considerations. I'd also be interested in hearing the response to this, as it would be one of the key points that would decide where my vote went signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders. Can you please let us finish having a conversation before you turn the issue into a confrontational vote? Many of us are already trying to work through what the requirements are and understand from what the current policy stems, including both Manoj and I who on first glance agree with you, and I have seen no sign as yet that we can't reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. But people are already freaking out about this, despite the fact that the conversation has just started, and now you're proposing a GR when we have only had one round of question and reply. If we reach a clear, unbridgable point of disagreement where both sides understand the motivating factors of the other side and still disagree, then we can look at whether a GR is an appropriate resolution. But right now, this is harmfully premature. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes: 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?) 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't want to override the FD (?) This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for this to be a meaningful statement, we would have to amend the constitution to create a person who is responsible for determining that such a conflict exists. Right now, there is no person who can make the above judgement, so making it a distinct case isn't particularly useful. 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say which of 2-5 it is. My point of view would be that 3 requires 3:1, 4 does not and that votes of type 5 or 6 should not be allowed to run until they are clarified. I agree with all of those statements except for 5, which I don't believe exists. 5 is actually identical to 4 in our current system. If, down the road, we create an officer responsible for ruling on conflicts around Foundation Documents, then 5 could exist if the statement in the GR was in conflict with their ruling. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes: Except I'm not sure this would be legal under non-profit law, unless you're very careful. There's an issue that funds can't be used to pay someone the equivilent of a 'wage' in this way. US non-profits can hire employees, but I believe there are conflict of interest limitations around the degree to which those employees can then be involved in the governance of the non-profit. I would suggest asking for legal advice if you you want to persue this, This is certainly good advice. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I agree that I would like to see a diff, ideally, but regardless, seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ pgpPM9U2ss1rd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Hi, On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - I am looking for seconds. seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all authors. And/but I'm confused now, can you really propose a GR proposal and immediatly look for seconds, isnt there a need for a discussion period first? (I thought so and thats why I've not seconded Jörgs GR enhancement proposal... but I'm too lazy to dig up policy now, sorry 'bout that.) If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially... actually, 87r60rgco4@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com was what convinced me. Quoting Manoj here: The verbatim copy of the programs source code have the copyright notice, so we meet that. Breinging that into this discussion is a red herring, and derails discussion on what is required in debian/copyright; nothing in the GPL ever requires a debian/copyright file at all. Trust me. Lots of people in the world distribute programs, and they often do not have debian/copyright files. Thinking about it, I also would want policy patches to vote upon. Or is that a bad idea? regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying 20 out of 1000 should be easy is only partially true, because it becomes 20 out of 400 if you consider the number of developers actually participating in any kind of voting procedure. It's not about creating a new number or basing the count on the last vote, it's just about taking this into account before ammending the constitution. Cheers, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5 supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000 Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work. I can't think of any vote in the (recent) past that shouldn't have happened. Can you point at one? While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30 supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth taking up time of everyone else. I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary, without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could you add those to your proposed resolution, so people can second all of them at the same time and reduce the number of emails on -v...@? As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a Keep it like it is, no discusssion is needed, I would accept such an amendment too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still). I would like to have such an option as well. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Some of these packages are very well maintained and others.. well, bug numbers sometimes speak for themselves. For these packages we have that cool text on the PTS pages: The package is of priority standard or higher, you should really find some co-maintainers. which brought me on this at all. What I thought about when I read that is: HaHaHa, we are kidding on us own, because we recommend something to us, what should actually be the default (for this type of packages). Thats why I thought it would eventually be a good idea to form a core team, meaning a team of a bunch of people (10-20?), with wide-spread knowledge and known to have enough free time (e.g. people who have 50 packages and aren't able to keep up with the bug reports in their own packages wouldn't qualify) that gets the job to (co-)maintain all these packages that are very important to us. It doesn't mean that the existing maintainers are taken away the packages, because they could still stay the maintainers, but obviously some of these packages are not easily maintainable by one person. What do you think about such a proposal? Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal, instead of proposing it to the developers? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: What do you think about such a proposal? Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal, instead of proposing it to the developers? Well, because it is in line with the questions which they have been asked and its both a good chance to see weither they stand on a similar point as I do and to see weither anyone is interested in the idea at all. Surely I intend to propose it to the larger body once its more then a rough idea. Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote: 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders. 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - Joss, To be honest, I've no idea when this policy started (it predates my involvment with ftpteam is as close as I've come) and personally I think it's time-wasting nonsense. On the other hand, as I don't know who instigated it and why, I'm reluctant to ask for it to be changed without understanding the rationale behind it. I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on. Given this, would you consent to holding off on the GR until the legal advice is available? Thanks, Mark [0] Of course, the project could decide that we want more info than that for whatever reason, but the point is that it'll be clear at that point what we *have* to provide. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:34 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit : seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all authors. IMHO the policy is already clear on it. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone is questioning the need for accurate licensing information in debian/copyright. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote: I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on. I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require. I believe they are not the same. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said as an example. Also, I don't believe that §4.2.3 is required if we're going to have the same procedure for both voting procedure changes, ctte overrides, and other general overrides Finally, I've modified the language of §4.2.2 slightly to make it clear that the proposal needs to explicitly say that it puts the delegate's decision on hold to avoid any need for the secretary to have to interpret whether it does or does not. On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] a) §4.2.1 is changed to read: The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and sponsored by at least 2*floor(Q) other Developers, or if proposed by the Project Leader or the Technical Committee. b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. b) §4.2.2 is changed to read: When a resolution has been sponsored by at least floor(Q) Developers, or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts the decision immediately on hold, provided that resolution itself says that it will put the decision on hold immediately. c) §4.2.3 is deleted. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] d) §4.2.7 is changed to read: Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. floor(Q) is the nearest integer less than or equal to Q. 2*floor(Q) is two times floor(Q). Q need not be an integer and is not rounded. e) §4.2 is renumbered to remain in sequence. Don Armstrong -- Vimes hated and despised the privileges of rank, but they had this to be said for them: At least they meant that you could hate and despise them in comfort. -- Terry Pratchett _The Fifth Elephant_ p111 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:04 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit : Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a method. Call it extortion if you want, but this is probably going to happen to a number of large packages unless this requirement goes away. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. Have we really reached the end of the normal informal discussion process on this issue without resolution? Proposing a formal GR now seems very premature. If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. For what it's worth, my argument is summarised in Message-ID: 87bprwlp7d@benfinney.id.au URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/03/msg00246.html. I'll underline the point that the discussion is *recent* and *ongoing* on this issue, and many points have yet to be made. It still appears quite feasible that a consensus will be reached *without* invoking any formal procedure. -- \“I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said ‘pet | `\ supplies’. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that | _o__) said ‘compact cars’.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au pgpZFElBDEJ6y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question for all candidates about http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:47:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:04:59PM +, Steve McIntyre a écrit : I can also see that you have your own menu/desktop topic there too that I expect you'll want to raise. What are your plans for that? [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny Hi Steve, snip detailed plan Yay! Last year I reviewed the debtags of ~100 packages in one month and a half; this makes me confident that if I have a few monthes plus some help, I can fuel perseverance and get the transition done. Cool, sounds good. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Mature Sporty Personal More Innovation More Adult A Man in Dandism Powered Midship Specialty -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: sponsorship of Debian development by companies?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:41:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 21/03/09 at 02:34 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Zack wrote that no one already contributing to Debian should be authorized to pick bounties offered by Debian directly. Would you encourage a similar position for bounties offered as part of the Google Summer of Code, for example? No. Who is picked in the end should depend on the terms of the scheme involved and on the quality of the particular projects. In the specific example of the GSoC, I'm much more interested in the likelihood of the student project to succeed than in who the student is. That's interesting, especially with your role of GSOC admin for Debian. Yup, I remember you've complained about it in the past. Let's imagine that a random company contacted you (as DPL) and said: I'll give you enough money to pay 10 DDs during 2 months to work on Debian ; you are free to choose who gets the jobs, and what people will work on. I have no interest in making such a choice. I'd rather push the company and DDs towards each other and let them work things out that way. We've already had a number of places where companies have hired DDs or paid them for certain jobs that they were interested in. It's not totally unrealistic: it's what Google does with GSOC (except that they impose that those who get the job are students, and that they reserve the right to reject specific projects/students). That's over-simplified to the point of being incorrect. Google ask us as a project to rank the student applications we receive, and to tell them how many projects we would like funding for. We specifically ask DDs to rate the applications and we use those ratings to rank the applications. There are already multiple admins and mentors registered, and we would like as many DDs as possible to help us make the decisions. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell. -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus.. - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded. Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org Irish police are being handicapped in a search for a stolen van, because they cannot issue a description. It's a special branch vehicle, and they don't want the public to know what it looks like. The Guardian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek spoke thus.. On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote: I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on. I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require. I believe they are not the same. Good point. I think we need to fairly carefully phrase the questions we ask of the lawyer and would welcome assistance in drafting them. Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org I told you I was ill The epitaph of Spike Milligan (1918-2002) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I second this proposal signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote: I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on. I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require. I believe they are not the same. And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses. Some of them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary packages. Some don't have this requirement in the license. Some are less clear. stew signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org writes: And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses. Some of them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary packages. Some don't have this requirement in the license. Some are less clear. The BSD license does not require that we list all copyright holders somewhere in the binary packages. It requires that we reproduce a *very specific* copyright notice in all binary packages, namely the one stated directly above the license terms. This is quite different if there are other files that don't reproduce the license and only have a copyright attached and a note saying they're released under the general terms of the package (or don't say anything but it's known to the packager that's the intent), which is not uncommon. If we replaced that copyright notice with all the copyright holders from the package and none of those resulting notices were exactly the same as the one immediately above the license, we'd actually arguably be violating the BSD license. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded! -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
