Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi Neil, Philip Hands p...@hands.com writes: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e ... Oh, oops! maybe you should set the Reply-To for bears of little brain like me. I'm sure you probably do so normally, and that having to reissue this was just enough to make it slip your mind. Thanks for dealing with it. 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 pgps1pWcLipSw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi, Philip Hands: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- That CfV should have had a Reply-To: line … -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Andreas == Andreas Henriksson andr...@fatal.se writes: Andreas Hello Anthony Towns! Andreas On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Andreas [...] I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few years, and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing resolutions (particularly constitutional changes!) to people who have been. So, as I've said before, happy to offer a second, but I don't expect to make an actual proposal. Andreas The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that Andreas tech-ctte members apparently recognize the need but still Andreas want to be force-rotated rather then voluntarily doing Andreas it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end up in a Andreas committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia Andreas and want to see as much as possible of it. I think with Lucas's proposal to handle the find round of term expirations immediately if we don't get this approved by January 1, there's a lot less time pressure. Also, I think Stefano did a great job of summarizing the things he thinks needs to be done. Stefano, I'm happy to sign up to put together a version of the proposal with the mathematical formulation and a paragraph about January 1 2015 for people to think about. I may get it out next week, but will definitely do it the week after if not. I'd be delighted if after reviewing and discussion you wanted to formally propose a resolution so I don't have to:-) Seconding and voting would be lots easier. -- 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/0149807422d1-bc9e3630-7f1c-414a-be10-7194ccd8682b-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Brian Gupta bgu...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org wrote: Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: I'd find arguments of the form I personally would find it confusing/bad to have both going on because ... more compelling than arguments of the form it would generally be confusing/bad. What I'm saying is that I'd be a lot more sympathetic to delay more than a week or so if people come forward and say they personally would like to delay more than if they say that some nebulous we/it would be a good idea to delay more. I'll say that I agree with the TC members who have spoken up.. I am a subscriber to -vote, and am still trying to sort out how I'm going to vote, but I am just burnt from all the email traffic. Me too. I'm afraid I'm spending too much time and effort tracking the -vote list at the moment, and I'd like a break! Regards, Matthew -- At least you know where you are with Microsoft. True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle. http://www.debian.org -- 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/5bfvdxy9j4@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hello Anthony Towns! On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few years, and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing resolutions (particularly constitutional changes!) to people who have been. So, as I've said before, happy to offer a second, but I don't expect to make an actual proposal. I have been quite active the past few years, and I do think your proposal is good and needed. I'm not very interested in the procedural formalia though, so if not for yourself could you please push this forward and propose it on my behalf? (You seem to have the procedure nailed down and you also seem to be able to come up with a more suitable proposal text then I would.) The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that tech-ctte members apparently recognize the need but still want to be force-rotated rather then voluntarily doing it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end up in a committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia and want to see as much as possible of it. Thanks for working on the initial proposal anyway. Much appreciated! Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- 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/20141105144338.ga1...@fatal.se
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@) Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit : The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. From what I can see [0], the public key as appended in the CfV is signed by the assistant secretary, and not by the secretary himself. Although §7.1.4 allows the secretary to delegate his authority, I think the above formulation (probably out of a template) was factually wrong. It would be good if the secretary could also sign this key and send the signature to the list... I've signed it and updated the ballot to have both signatures. I've also uploaded that to the keyservers. Kurt -- 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/20141105172851.ga22...@roeckx.be
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that tech-ctte members apparently recognize the need but still want to be force-rotated rather then voluntarily doing it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end up in a committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia and want to see as much as possible of it. I find this explanation to be absolutely backward. There are good reasons for *not* wanting a maximum term limit to be just folklore. If it is something important (and I think it is), then it should really be carved in the stone of a foundation document. That way you avoid the risk of people trying to game the system and, more importantly, the social awkwardness of having to deal with that situation, no matter how unlikely that is to happen. As I've mentioned before: a Constitution is precisely the place where one wants to be paranoid. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their mouths without asking first. 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: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
goli...@riseup.net wrote: I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/ Thank you for your contribute. Next! -- ciao, Marco -- 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/m3e287$oq9$1...@posted-at.bofh.it
Re: Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
m...@linux.it wrote: goli...@riseup.net wrote: I came to Linux for FREEDOM and for configurability. Finally, I could http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/ Thank you for your contribute. Next! It might be your opinion that GNU/Linux is not about choice, but it is often said and the reason why many people use it. Besides that one can choose between different solutions for quite a lot of problems (GUI's, editors, compilers, etc). Else update-alternatives wouldn't make any sense at all. I assume you are aware of that. No need for that sharp an answer. I couldn't say it any better: http://blowingupbits.com/2014/11/thoughts-systemd-freedom-choose/ and especially: If Debian’s leadership is even half awake at the helm they will realize just how many new users they can gain if they continue to offer freedom of choice where init is concerned It will work the other way around too, of course. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How about always sending a copy of proposals, amendements, secondes etc. to the Secretary ?
Le Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:45:55PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit : Those of us who propose amendments and proposals should really propose a ballot option name, amendment, and figure out who seconded the proposals and just send them to the secretary in wml suitable for direct inclusion in the appropriate vote_nnn.wml file. I don't think it's necessary to actually amend the constitution to do this, because it's just something that we can do. Le Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:35:56AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : (on your other point, I agree that we could move the burden of collecting Seconds to the proposer.) Thanks for your comments. Indeed, modifying the constitution would be too much in the end. So the tentative conclusion of this discussion is that the Secretary is welcome to modify the voting instructions (https://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal) in order to transfer some of the procedural burden to the people proposing and amending general resolutions. 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 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106020546.ge12...@falafel.plessy.net
