Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
On 22/10/14 at 07:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Thanks Charles. I believe this is an improvement over the previous wording. Seconded. - Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. I don't suppose it's necessary, but since that perfectly fits my thoughts on this subject: Seconded. Thank you for your efforts on this, and especially for this improved wording. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgpOJJ_dQ_b1F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18) Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1 = A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj]) (if you are confused with “one” here, it’s basically fine to read it as “sysvinit” instead. See [10]this subthread for a discussion about this) I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed by his proposal. I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but basically fine! @Ian: I would appreciate if you commented on this. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered. The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent. I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. Received and updated. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi Neil, I realized that myself afterwards, please forgive my ignorance. Indeed, I'm not a registered Debian developer, so my vote cannot be accepted. Sergey On 22 October 2014 13:39, Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk wrote: Hi Sergey, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose myself what init system to use in my Debian setup. This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in db.debian.org. Unfortunately, only Debian Developers may sponsor resolutions in this way. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cabtsbto1zb+iqj0dfr4err_gujjlhno2lygnwbmsswc1g6n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi Sergey, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose myself what init system to use in my Debian setup. This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in db.debian.org. Unfortunately, only Debian Developers may sponsor resolutions in this way. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022103926.gq18...@halon.org.uk
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments): Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18) I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed by his proposal. Yes. In practice such packages are not going to be a big problem because writing init scripts for them would be straightforward, and then the dependency could be relaxed. I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but basically fine! It's only a war between systemd and sysvinit insofar as some of systemd's proponents are trying to abolish everything except systemd, which encompasses abolishing sysvinit. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21575.42067.727169.68...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement. [and 1 more messages]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Charles Plessy writes ([Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.): I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. I'm not entirely convinced this is quite regular. You are the proposer of an amendment, not of the resolution. I think under A.1(5) it would be for me to propose such changes and you to approve them. This is probably a bug in the constitution. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no objection to amendment-proposers making changes to their amendment texts. If it is necessary, I hereby give my consent. (Or, people you prefer, I preemptively declare that I should be taken to have `suggested' such changes, according to A.1(5).) I say this on the understanding that such changes do not reset the minimum discussion period. I think the minimum discussion period was reset by my amendment email at Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 and therefore expires at Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:59:16 +. At that time I will call for a vote. (I think my email of Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:06:22 +0100 fixing a numbering typo falls under A.1(6).) Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUR6eCAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05YO0IAIv50XuJwKbonepJMHRZSobL ueQQVA37sZW0B0EmobpLRgXweY5VjKwje4BXaJ9dfWm1g/yh9wgMXnpJHVbv+nHK aUfGKsT+PgNXTxQS2bGAU4H6kITK0xroA+XvqKppVsNa7NMcykXPAHkm9QfGIYnU 1gIyA7d5QX3HQ0kvTJAzSqmj8PVcofKU1Chnh42kT/aR4U32kMTJBCC3KlbKZTcR 1ASP8qqanb2GT/kpIaBu0xGdrhFuEY9rJWBI9QGdx97ECFhwSCzVCpYniBZya7Yu sTbh8QE40TUe9eS9pBSDvzpB6SkTlo+QZMZi1v+CJZtkLpdI3VfOLa4KnxlLZsI= =IeUH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21575.42935.691737.468...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Ian, Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit : Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments): I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but basically fine! It's only a war between systemd and sysvinit insofar as some of systemd's proponents are trying to abolish everything except systemd, which encompasses abolishing sysvinit. Can you _please_ point to such attempts or retract your unfounded FUD? As far as I have read so far, most systemd's proponents only want the software they maintain be _allowed_ to use the systemd features in a Debian context, something which is totally unrelated to abolishing sysvinit. I'll go even further by pointing out that the systemd maintainers have pointed [0] their intend to _ensure_ that sysvinit would _stay_ at the users' disposal even through upgrades migrating to having systemd as pid1. I will also note that so far only Jonas and you have used the term war in the context of this GR discussion period. I thought the discussion period was supposed to be rather a democratic exercise than a call to arms. OdyX [0] https://lists.debian.org/871tq1fihn@xoog.err.no -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1564256.lJdt0hsHAp@gyllingar
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (2014-10-22): The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in cases of doubt. -- from appendix B in the constitution. OK, I didn't remember that (documented) convention. No objection then. Take the current members, Ian, Bdale, Steve, Andi, Russ and Don are all over five years and are in roughly that order of seniority iirc. On Jan 1st 2015, assuming no resignations, then: [...] ie, I guess I was thinking that were all considered simultaneously so ordering wasn't relevant. In fact, I don't mind simultaneity, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't something that had been overlooked. I do observe that simultaneity might result in more expiries than in scenarios in which you either define a specific ordering, or members that would have been in the expiration set voluntarily step down before January 1st. Oh, hey, since there's already math in the constitution, maybe it would work to say something like: Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed at least 4.5 years ago. N is defined as 2-R (if R 2) or 0 (if R = 2). R is the number of former members of the Technical Committee who have resigned, or been removed or replaced within the previous twelve months. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed at the same time and have been a member of the Debian project longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant. ? It's getting closer to source code than English at that point, but... In fact, I found the above mathematical formulation quite nice, and clearer than the English wording. But it might be just me. Others? (I'm not sure the second paragraph there is actually needed; could probably just rely on the secretary or the ctte itself to interpret seniority and disambiguate appointment sensibly.) Better safe than sorry, I'd rather keep it in. Even if it were only to spare the Project a couple of threads on hey, but what does it *actually* mean to be ``more senior'', it would be worth it :-) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
On 21/10/14 at 20:09 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1 = A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj]) (if you are confused with “one” here, it’s basically fine to read it as “sysvinit” instead. See [10]this subthread for a discussion about this) I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed by his proposal. Thanks for pointing this out. I clarified this in the blog post: http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=845 Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022143709.ga3...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Hi, On 20/10/14 at 14:47 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes: Joey Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines Joey of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it Joey currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy, Joey to the TC. It could implicitly or explicitly reaffirm both Joey recent TC decisions on init systems. I'd support very strongly something like this, no more than one or two more paragraphs like the above. I think that this is what Charles' proposal does now. And my personal hope is that it will be the winning option, preferably with FD beating all three other options. However, I don't plan to withdraw my own proposal. Given that we are going to vote anyway, it will be useful to have a representative set of options for the general technical directions that Debian could take on this set of questions, in order to estimate what the project wants. During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able to serve as input in future TC discussions on similar/related topics. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi, On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period, to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the middle of next week about that. I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined to shorten the discussion period. I reached out to Ian in private (in an attempt to limit the noise on this list), but Ian suggested that we have this discussion in public. However, Ian said that he has no objection to shortening the discussion period. Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening the discussion period to one week? On the other hand, Ian said that he doesn't think that it would be right to shorten the voting period. Given that I have been heavily involved in the discussions around this GR proposal, I am not going to reduce the voting period against the original proposer's will. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi Lucas, 2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org: Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening the discussion period to one week? Fine for me. Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadk7b0myhwpcdgigdos2xsby83ggwaaifj1n-57fxornqni...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week): I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined to shorten the discussion period. I reached out to Ian in private (in an attempt to limit the noise on this list), but Ian suggested that we have this discussion in public. Indeed. However, Ian said that he has no objection to shortening the discussion period. I have no objection for my own part. But, as I said in my private email, I am very concerned that we don't get any accusations of foul play. Therefore I think it essential that, at the very least, all of the proponents of alternative versions agree. It might be worth posting to debian-devel-announce asking if anyone objects and thinks we need more discussion time, and inviting them to say so on -vote if they do. We have already had some problems with people not being aware enough of the formal processes. On the other hand, Ian said that he doesn't think that it would be right to shorten the voting period. Given that I have been heavily involved in the discussions around this GR proposal, I am not going to reduce the voting period against the original proposer's will. Thank you. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21575.52836.735647.936...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able to serve as input in future TC discussions on similar/related topics. As one of the people who thought that clause was a good idea, I don't think that it's only there due to a legitimacy crisis. My opinion then, which continues to be my position now, is that requiring a supermajority to overrule the TC is a mistake. The bar for a GR is already high enough, and we, as a project, already tend to defer to existing decisions. I think that's enough protection against unnecessary reversals, and I think a TC decision opposed by 60% of the project but still enforced is a very unhealthy place to be. The clause allowing an override by simple majority was a hack to disable the constitution's super-majority requirement. I continue to be in favor of a constitutional amendment to remove the super-majority requirement for TC overrides via GR in general, thus eliminating the need for such hacks. -- 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 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738agrqy1@hope.eyrie.org
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org (2014-10-22): Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit : Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments): I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but basically fine! It's only a war between systemd and sysvinit insofar as some of systemd's proponents are trying to abolish everything except systemd, which encompasses abolishing sysvinit. Can you _please_ point to such attempts or retract your unfounded FUD? What about no? Whether Ian is conducting a crusade for freedom/against tight coupling, or is just unhappy about having lost the TC vote, or just acting in good faith according to his deepest belief… doesn't matter much. Trying to pin point who said exactly what, whether that's FUD, or just inexact, or twisted, or whatever… doesn't matter much either. There were several *thousands* of mails on that topic, it seems far enough to me. A GR process has been started, let's let people come up with their amendments, let's vote and be done with it until the next episode. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org (2014-10-22): On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period, to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the middle of next week about that. I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined to shorten the discussion period. For all I know/remember from the mails I read, it seems there was an agreement that this GR wouldn't affect jessie in any way. While I can sympathize with trying to reach a conclusion sooner than later, possibly sparing quite some mails[1], I'm not sure why there would be any need for any rush. Can't we just let the usual timing apply? 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00319.html KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Ian Jackson wrote: Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments): Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18) I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed by his proposal. Yes. In practice such packages are not going to be a big problem because writing init scripts for them would be straightforward, and then the dependency could be relaxed. So you agree that there is no fundamental problem with packaging software that requires either systemd or uselessd? Does the GR still require someone(tm) to package uselessd for Debian before packaging that other (fundamentally OK even by your standards) software is allowed? To polish uselessd integration until it's actually a usable init system in Debian? I assume you are not volunteering for this work? Consider what happens if the uselessd project is abandoned, and systemd opponents do not come up with any other viable alternative either. Upstart dies after Canonical abandons it. At some point in the future developers decide that sysvinit is hopelessly obsolete, and maintaining support for such an obsolete system will not be help migration to any new init system appearing in the future (which would likely support at least basic systemd features anyway). Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new GR to override this one? Sysvinit support must be kept indefinitely just to fulfill the at least 2 init systems requirement? I think the part about degraded operation with some init systems is unclear. 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. Is this supposed to apply only to init systems that the package officially supports in some sense? If a package works great with systemd, with tolerable problems with Upstart, and is almost completely unusable with Sysvinit, then a straightforward reading would suggest that the GR would make it RC-buggy. Is the idea that the package would declare that it requires either systemd or Upstart, and as long as there are at least two such systems, the Sysvinit problems don't count? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1413998067.32583.13.ca...@pp1.inet.fi
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
On 22 October 2014 20:14, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: Jonas Smedegaard writes (Re: Tentative summary of the amendments): Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18) I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed by his proposal. Yes. In practice such packages are not going to be a big problem because writing init scripts for them would be straightforward, and then the dependency could be relaxed. So you agree that there is no fundamental problem with packaging software that requires either systemd or uselessd? That would not be a problem, because uselessd is only an init system and does not include all the extra services that systemd does, for example - logind is not a part of uselessd. Therefore, even if uselessd is packaged tomorrow, there would still be just one init system in Debian implementing this feature. So the Ians proposal makes it a bug to depend on features that are only implemented in one init system. Naturally this whole discussion would become moot if all other init systems decided to die and were excluded from the archive. Also, in practise, once you assume that a feature might simply not exist, a single workaround will work just as fine for all other init systems that don't have the feature. I think that practical effect would be the same if we mandated support running with at least one non-default init system at PID 1 or support running with sysvinit at PID 1 or support running with any init systems in the archive at PID 1 from the point of view of software being able to start with an alternative init system managing the installation (not from the point of view of having init scripts for all init systems). -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovsmailto:aigar...@debian.org #--# | .''`.Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)| | : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) | | `. `'Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting | | `- (http://www.aiteki.com) | #--# -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CABpYwDUBXtG+zDcKJNHMtrV8u8H5yc+=2u9p-vcesmhxm4n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Uoti Urpala wrote: Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new GR to override this one? I was originally worried about this too, and it's one reason out of many why I strongly dislike using GRs to decide technical matters. My understanding though, is that this GR would change a TC decision, with the blessing of the TC, such that the GR becomes the new TC decision. So the GR result should be no harder to change than any other TC decision. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. Cheers, aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUSA/DAAoJEGF3s1WCqNimaYEQAMA6sUbYEtQEdi6xQzG4/N2z GpaaKmBsff3b+dePYAQpcriybTztQAbPdwrX8jgbXdEkW74wfZOtBrt3yh1XSr6c JhpKSi7/XIrr1QAUIbBq05q7o6IHI84EOq0fVKEIJHzUK2/LZFAfRZLagye6Owkx 5SQoAnaXH2+DCozRa+2d0vwD11XLZ6mFccAYQqBST4ChyOpzf7SNQQQ2lAjQq5Br BTTpvFglJGgHIebmkrJ9ag6gIl5b2CAtbxL8Nm4GK7meZKBxpUX+PqPs2W4Ckl+/ 4xbAErS/x/xVWvhIFkJbpVj343dmmu9ZNCbMt0raIb5PgKDADghY0jqK+WY/RHG1 K5VIyZo3tRBfx66qfghrrv3MlBU/MJl9fnKWe7pGPQMq2Wv5R33o35qJXDcE1ERm sddybbR1gO2YBh8xUkCaTxJhjMBON8tpfzGrCunvmR2qsHIAJnQqg+TW9vC9xHA7 adwnL2wyli8VAQ1fPEbdMCM46uFWe7DyCYxZL2Mhpxd2LAj90hNH7uPsjG+P1w8y 2TerLKVzrAPWmWNxieDEX77EPw7rfk3OM9/cY9LUP56xz8axUcecNveDc0MbE8sJ 0sNR9y1REUDrs1+3YadNCnXsNLakfcgRSWJUVwj9nYL0SXvSd2kDt1W8QVwUsZ7h DaCM19+1hlRLOgnKZwqC =JjLk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022201405.ga8...@master.debian.org
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening the discussion period to one week? I am fine with shortening it. Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
