Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation > > This resolution is a position statement under section 4.1 (5) of the > Debian constitution: > > Cross-distribution standards and cooperation are important factors in > the choice of core Debian technologies. It is important to recognize > that the Linux ecosystem has widely adopted systemd and that the level > of integration of systemd technologies in Linux systems will increase > with time. > > Debian is proud to support and integrate many different technologies. > With everything we do, the costs and benefits need to be considered, > both for users and in terms of the effects on our development community. > An init system is not an isolated component, but is deeply integrated in > the core layer of the system and affects many packages. We believe that > the benefits of supporting multiple init systems do not outweigh the > costs. > > Debian can continue to provide and explore other init systems, but > systemd is the only officially supported init system. Wishlist bug > reports with patches can be submitted, which package maintainers should > review like other bug reports with patches. As with systemd, work > should be done upstream and in cooperation with other Linux and FOSS > distributions where possible. The priority is on standardization > without the reliance on complicated compatibility layers. > > Integrating systemd more deeply into Debian will lead to a more > integrated and tested system, improve standardization of Linux systems, > and bring many new technologies to our users. Packages can rely upon, > and are encouraged to make full use of, functionality provided by > systemd. Solutions based on systemd technologies will allow for more > cross-distribution cooperation. The project will work on proposals and > coordinate transitions from Debian-specific solutions where appropriate. Seconded, thanks. Ana signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to >do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical >interest by any process which at minimum provides sufficient time and >opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to >declassification. > > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
> > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] > requiring > the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list. > For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized, > despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002 > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html > > Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the > debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a > discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others > that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the > debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists. > > While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is > now > time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never > happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move > discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion > subsides. > > We therefore propose the following General Resolution: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2014: Call for votes
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 01:13:32AM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 9210c556-9aea-47b8-95e5-bfc1da8405d9 > [ 1 ] Choice 1: Javier Merino Cacho > [ 2 ] Choice 2: el vicho > [ 3 ] Choice 3: David Garrett > [ 4 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- 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/20140401092308.ga32...@pryan.ekaia.org
two questions: fund raising money and publicity
Hi, Two unrelated questions. Feel free to reply in separate emails. * Fundraising DebConf is one of the biggest expenses of Debian, every year we look for sponsorship and we had (and have) sponsors who were sponsoring DebConf as a way of giving their "annual donation" to Debian and not necessarily funding DebConf itself. (Do you agree with this part, BTW?) In recent years, we have started to invest more Debian money in stuaff such like sprints and minidebconfs¹ that sometimes look for external founding. This has lead to some cases where sponsors have been contacted for separate teams in Debian which can be confusing. If you think this is a problem. How do you think we can improve this? ¹ Both investments are a great idea BTW * Publicizing Debian We have several officials ways of publicizing stuff in Debian: press releases, identi.ca, bits.d.o and the DPN. We also have the bits from the DPL that sometimes overlap with the above sources and announce stuff that should be announce somewhere else instead of mixed with the DPL activity. That said, the coordination between the above sources doesn't work very well, all of them have a lot of room for improvement (and I say that being closely involved in one of them) and I have seen Debian contributors lost about what to do when they want to announce something, sometimes being played as a ping pong ball between teams. I would love to know your vision about how publicizing Debian should work and if you think you can do something as DPL to improve the current situation. Best regards, Ana -- 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/20140319092120.ga1...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: not being elected?
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:54:20PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > But despite being a small group of people working a lot on it and the > > Spanish > > speaking community being big, it didn't last long. > [ after seeking clarification: it didn't last long because there were > not enough people willing to do the mentoring ] > > So it means that there's actually some demand for this, which is great. Of course there are a lot of demand in mentoring. I do not think nobody has ever doubt that in previous emails! Some people have even tried doing different thinks in the past, like this: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/10/msg5.html But mentoring and integrating new contributors requires a lot of time and efforts that you don't know if they will pay off or not. So yeah, go and try and I'm waiting you reach the same conclusions than me in some months :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318151157.ga28...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: not being elected?
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > At least for debian-devel-french@, I don't think that we advertise the > possibility to ask questions there. Just start a discussion there, get a new wording and then ask listmasters to change it. Probably this update could benefit of having the list description in both English and French. > I'm not sure we need another list for that, given the low traffic (and > spanish looks similar) I meant new lists for other languages that don't have a list yet (when a group of people speaking that language ask for it, of course). > > Mentoring works better when the mentor and the mentee are speaking in their > > natives languages, but ultimately to participate in Debian people need a > > minimal knowledge of written English... > > Sure, but making one's first steps in Debian is also very difficult. So > I think that every possible way to simplify that first step is a good > thing. > > So, if I'm not elected, I will probably: > - see if it's considered OK to direct french contributors to > debian-devel-french@ (I guess it will be OK) > - see if a few french contributors besides me would agree to answer > questions on IRC, and create #-mentors-fr if that's the case > (#-devel-fr is quite active, so it's better not to add more "noise" > there) > - advertise this (blog, packaging tutorial, etc.) > - provide feedback to the project after a few weeks/months, so that > others can possibly make the same move > > This sounds like a rather simple step to make, hence my "low-hanging > fruit" qualifier. I see, it is not that easy. To sustain a mentoring community for a long time, it needs plenty of people around it. In Debian we currently struggle to keep our global community in English going running because the lack of mentors. That's why I exceptical about communities per language taking off. Some people pushed for a similar experiment to the one you describe some years ago in Spanish, they even added a round of talks: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianSpanish/Devel/IRCTalks But despite being a small group of people working a lot on it and the Spanish speaking community being big, it didn't last long. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318130013.ga23...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: not being elected?
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:41:05PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Tasks I am quite sure I will do are: (...) > - investigate the "localization" of -mentors@ and #-mentors. Language is often > a barrier for new contributors. That sounds like a low-hanging fruit. Could you elaborate more since you seem to believe this is a "low-hanging fruit"? There are already resources in Debian by language. Some communities use it more than others. So far I haven't seen anybody being pushed away to ask a newbie development question in debian-devel-french@ or debian-devel-spanish@. I expect it to be similar in other languages mailing list. We have a few of them, see [1]. More list can be created if a group ask the listmasters and our policy to create IRC channels is totally non burocratic (As we have no policy). Mentoring works better when the mentor and the mentee are speaking in their natives languages, but ultimately to participate in Debian people need a minimal knowledge of written English... [1] http://lists.debian.org/devel.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318110313.ga19...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: [all candidate] what is your dayjob?
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 04:21:22PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > This one is an easy one to answer, I hope. No trap here... > > Being the DPS is for sure a very demanding job. So I would like to know > what your current activity is (what is your paid job). Please also > explain how much your activity may (or may not) allow you to have time > for the DPL activity. Hi, If you read the platforms, this is something all the candidates have addressed there. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130315083239.ga20...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: mentoring programs in Debian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 07:50:27PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 12/03/13 at 14:14 +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote: .. > > > > This kind of mentoring "let's package this new software stack" (and create > > a team to maintain it, when it doesn't exist) doesn't need to happen inside > > the GSoC, it can happen already in Debian. > > Nothing really needs to happen inside GSoC. But GSoC provide several > advantages: > - there's a rigid framework (deadlines, etc) that help the student organize > and focus > - the student gets paid by Google > - the student gets to mention both Debian and Google on his CV, which is > probably seen positively by future recruiters. Yeah, and also the GSoC have a huge disadvantage, it is available only to a tiny small percentage of the population who have the privilege of getting a higher education, then only if their school load and life responsibilities allow them to participate in the program. It would also be good for us to encourage our own programs to a wider and diverse population, instead of relying exclusively on the rules set by a non-free-software company. And assuming that students want non-free-software companies on their CV. Your whole point here somehow seems to be against this internship idea While you seemed to agree previously that all of these internship-like things (GSoC, NM, team-trainee, ...) are good. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130312205610.ga30...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: mentoring programs in Debian
Hi Russ, On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:03:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ana Guerrero writes: > > > - For some DDs in previous years, this seemed to be a way to have students > > doing stuff from their TODO lists... > > Just a quick note on this part: I don't think this is inherently a bad > idea, although of course it should be something the student is also > excited about. But I remember what I was like when I was in high school: > I really wanted to program, but I was horrible at coming up with useful > things to do. I needed a good problem stream that I could work on and > then I enjoyed finding ways to solve the problems. Not everyone is like > that, of course, but I do think there are people out there who just want > to put skills to use and learn how to do new things but don't know how to > select good and useful problems to work on. > > On the general topic of mentoring, though, I think one of the hardest > parts of helping new people join the project is that people need to start > with relatively easy tasks so that they can get their feet wet. That > often means that one needs to step back and let new people do things that > are easy for the mentor, which in turn means leaving easy work undone for > long enough to give people a chance to do it. I see your point. In these cases, the "mentor" was more treating the GSoC program as a bounty program or a way to have "contractors" paid at the expense of somebody else. It wasn't a real mentoring scheme. This kind of mentoring "let's package this new software stack" (and create a team to maintain it, when it doesn't exist) doesn't need to happen inside the GSoC, it can happen already in Debian. In fact, some Debian teams already do this, but fail to announce it clearly. When an interested user ask, we tend to say: "if you want new version of X in Debian, we need help" instead of "we welcome new contributors. If you don't have a lot of experience, don't worry, we'll mentor you! Please take a look at this and if you can questions mails us to X and/or join us in IRC" or something along these lines :) Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130312131416.ga12...@pryan.ekaia.org
mentoring programs in Debian
[Some sort-of thread hijacking] Hi folks, I see this thread going nowhere and it's a pity because discussing new ways to integrate contributors in Debian is a topic worth discussing. I have been involved in GSoC in the editions 2011 and 2012 and in Code-in 2011. Besides that, I mentored a now DD inside the Debian Women mentoring program. All those mentoring programs were *very* different therefore producing different results. And I'm sure we can use more schemes of recruiting/attracting new contributors. The question I would love to see answered by you both is: What new schemes of mentoring/integrating new contributors do you envisage we could try in Debian? Some notes about GSoC and packaging projects that was IMHO uselessly discussed in this thread. In previous years we didn't accept packaging projects in GSoC for several reasons: - We already have some sort of mentoring program in Debian for people wanting to package: debian-mentors list and the website. - Something that is packaged needs later a maintainer. - Packaging something you don't use sucks. This is linked to the previous point: possibility of keep the maintenance later of something you don't use... - For some DDs in previous years, this seemed to be a way to have students doing stuff from their TODO lists... - Sometimes packaging works need waiting in third parties (e.g. license clarification) and this can not be done in the scope of the GSoC. We must avoid at all cost a project were the student lost their time waiting for somebody else. - Google's program is mostly about code. They are on purpose vague about this and don't enforce it strongly, but the student needs to upload to Google's server their code at the end of the summer. My interpretation of this is the project doesn't need to be 100% coding but it must have some coding part. In this regard we have some projects last year where the student needed to write patches. If you check last year project list, we offered a project that fitted in the "packaging project" category because we were told by the mentor-to-be that the project included coding. We gave the mentor the benefit of the doubt, but when we saw the student's proposal themselves, it actually didn't have enough coding within it and they weren't very good, so we didn't have this project even if it's still listed. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130311205602.ga19...@pryan.ekaia.org
Re: call for vote - welcome non-packaging contributors as project members
Hi, On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:52:54AM +0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: > On 02-10-2010 23:20, Ana Guerrero wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 01:07:57AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > [...] > >> The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: > > [...] > >> * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of > >> non-packaging work as Debian Developers. > > > > Reading this, I understand with this GR we would be accepting in advance > > whatever procedure DAM consider appropriate to accept contributors of > > non-packaging work as Debian Developers. > > Isn't the case already? I mean, DAM can change that > procedure at any time, sure we can have a GR to revert it, but > there wouldn't be a difference from what is already in place, > they get to decide how people get "full Debian membership". Exactly, so if DAM can already change that anytime and they have already shown they would like to accept non-packaging DD, then what is this GR for? Yes, I know it is to see if the project members agree to have non-packagers contributors, then why we need the DAM bit there? > > I have not read all the discussion thread, but it seems there is already > > a rough idea of how this will be done. It would be a very good idea and > > I would be very grateful if an email, with the general plan of how this > > will be implemented, is sent before the voting period begins. > > IMHO, it may be giving the false impression that this GR > is attached with some specific procedure and it is not. The GR > is just a matter of state it clear, as a project, that we encourage > and accept members that are not code (or packaging) contributors, > how they'll be accepted is a different matter, shouldn't be impacted > by the rules and I do trust (and expect) DAMs (and NM FrontDesk) > will clearly communicate changes on this matter. > I understand this GR as: DAM team, go ahead and establish the procedure you think is the best. You assume there will be a discussion, I don't, because we are not asking them to discuss, we asking them to implement what they think is appropiate. That is why I asked an email from DAM about what to expect. Don't read me wrong, I *want* non-packaging DD, but with the current wording, looks like if you want non-packaging DDs, you must accept in advance they will be handled according to a unknown procedure. I feel some people when faced with this option will vote no. Sure we can override DAM later with a GR, but we clearly do not want that. If the text were something like: "inviting DAM to start a discussion in the project about the procedures to to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers", it would be different. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101004152326.ga15...@ekaia.org
Re: call for vote - welcome non-packaging contributors as project members
Hi, Just a small question about this part of the GR text: On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 01:07:57AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [...] > The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: [...] > * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of > non-packaging work as Debian Developers. Reading this, I understand with this GR we would be accepting in advance whatever procedure DAM consider appropriate to accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. I have not read all the discussion thread, but it seems there is already a rough idea of how this will be done. It would be a very good idea and I would be very grateful if an email, with the general plan of how this will be implemented, is sent before the voting period begins. Thanks, Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101002212051.ga25...@ekaia.org
Re: First call for votes: GR: Project membership procedures
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:10:54PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > Apologies for the delay in the start of this vote, it's the first time > that devotee has been used by a different user, and some last minute > bugs appeared. > > So, without further ado: > This is the first call for votes for vote_002: General Resolution: > Project membership procedures. Note that voting isn't quite open yet. > > Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Monday 8th Dec 2008 > Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday,14th Dec 2008 > > Please note the shortened time for voting as per > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First and last call for vote since it is only one week... So please, send a reminder in thursday/friday. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another one?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:13:24AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > So, we right now have an option that effectively stops the proposal as > > > it is at present. > > > > > > I wonder if we should haven an option on the ballot that asks the DAM to > > > basically go forward with their idea, explicitly authorizing them to > > > merge the DM setup in to it? > > > > I think that this is orthogonal, and should be a seperate resolution, > > not an option in this resolution. > > So you would prefer having "Further Discussion" be the de-facto go-ahead > option? > No please. You can disagree with both: this GR and Joerg's proposal. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to create some accounts? (Was: NM Report for Week Ending 06 Apr 2008)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:35:23AM +0200, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > I second this mail for two reasons: > * I think NM with DAM approval (just like KiBi) should vote Not only Cyril, two long time contributors to the project like Martin Ferrari and Miriam Ruiz, are waiting for their acount as well. I would love that all of them were able to exercise their more than earned right to vote. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Marc: So, is any of the other candidates above 'NOTA' for you?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:45AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: ... > > Nominations are over. It's you, Raphaël and Steve. So... I think your > opinion here is fundamental: Are you still running? What is your stand > on them (well, yes, I know we don't yet have Steve's platform, and > that'll be a fundamental point for your answers - but still, consider > this question as formulated as soon as you can comment on it). > It is not properly linked yet, but you have Steve's platform at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/platforms/93sam Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Thank you for the 542th "Seconded." on this proposal. We don't even need to > > vote any more :-) > >Seriously, could we have this change without voting? > I was wondering the same... Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> =
> 5.2. Appointment
>
> 1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
> 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
>post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> 3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
>may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
>{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
> 4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
>candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
>identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
>are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
>nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
>additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
> 5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
>which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
>elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
> 6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
>nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
>Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
>procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
> 7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
>A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
>as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is "None
>Of The Above".
> 8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
> =
Seconded.
Ana
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Questions to the candidates
Hi, here my questions: Why do you think you will be a good DPL? What you can for Debian as DPL that you can not do as a mere DD? What do you think of the current NM process? Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
