Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
On Jo, 01 apr 21, 17:00:47, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > This would be a vote I would also like to see as secret. The > constitution says: > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and >results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote >the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting period >is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the Project >Leader. > > While for DPL election it says: > 5. The next 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. > > You could say that "all the votes cast" could mean what was voted, > now who voted what, but I think that conflicts with the intention > of the text. How about making the votes available to Debian Members only? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Announcing new decision making procedures for Debian
On Jo, 01 apr 21, 00:12:56, Jessica Clarke wrote: > On 1 Apr 2021, at 00:06, Alejandro Nadal wrote: > > > (If this message breaks the mailing list protocol in any way, I am > > deeply sorry, I am new to these debian mailing lists) > > Top-posting is awful and should be an instant rejection of any opinions for a > GR IMO, same as non-plaintext replies and not line-wrapping. This is obviously wrong! Top-posting, html attachments and long lines should instantly give higher value to the opinion! Bonus points for writing the entire reply as an attached .doc, or even better .ppt, file (MS Office 1997 version or earlier). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to leverage money to accomplish high impact Debian projects
On Ma, 23 mar 21, 16:40:32, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > That's a good point, I agree. What about packages that we have lost > interest in, but that our users very much have not? Admittedly, I have > no idea of what the cardinality of that intersection is. [just a user here] If such packages and users exist it looks like a good candidate to set up a business financed via crowd funding. Or maybe Debian should provide the crowd funding platform for this. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 13:23:04, Josh Triplett wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [private reply on purpose, since I'm not a DD] > > [Neither am I; replying publically since your reply was actually public.] Oh, always had the impression you are a DD :) > -8<- > The Constitution is amended as follows: > > --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-20 13:14:40.018610438 -0800 > +++ constitution.txt 2014-11-20 13:15:23.714844659 -0800 > @@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ > appointment. > 5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may > remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. > +6. No Developer may serve on the Technical Committee for more than 4 > + years out of any 6 year period. A Developer's term on the > + Technical Committee expires if they would exceed this limit. > >6.3. Procedure > > > As a transitional measure, the terms of the current members of the Technical > Committee shall instead expire every 6 months starting on 2015-01-01, in > descending order of seniority; term limits then apply to them as normal. > -8<- Since I've already messed up with the private/public replies I'll just make one more post and then shut up. IMVHO: 1. hard-coding a date (any date) might provide "interesting" side effects, probably easier to just use the date of the adoption of the GR, with some grace period (e.g. one month), to allow planing for the first expiry. 2. The above reads to me (as a non-native speaker) like it would apply to *all* TC members, not only those with terms longer than imposed by the (amended) Constitution. Slightly more complicated, needs review from a native speaker: As a transitional measure, the terms of any current members of the Technical Committee that exceed the limit above at the time of adoption of this General Resolution shall instead expire every 6 months, starting one month after adoption of this General Resolution, in descending order of seniority. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 21:43:03, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > [private reply on purpose, since I'm not a DD] Which I did not, sorry... Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover
[private reply on purpose, since I'm not a DD] On Jo, 20 nov 14, 11:25:10, Josh Triplett wrote: > > """ > No Developer may serve on the Technical Committee for more than 4 years > out of any 6 year period. A Developer's term on the Technical Committee > expires if they would exceed this limit. > """ > > Exact numbers open for bikeshedding, but does the principle seem sound? It does to me, but given the current "age" of the TC members[1] the practical effect would be that the terms of all TC members except Keith Packard would expire as soon as the GR passes and assuming no member ever retires the same will happen every 4 years (as per your suggest numbers). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00199.html I would suggest introducing a transitional clause that would state something like: As a transitional measure, the terms of all current members that exceed 4 years will only expire every 6 months, in order of seniority. This would need some refining, but I hope you get the point. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On Ma, 28 ian 14, 07:41:26, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > > > This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking > > for sponsors now. > > Hi Guillem, > > if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then I will > second your GR. In the meantime, it is probably better to focus our thoughts > on something else; it is only a matter of days now. According to the latest updates the TC vote is quite likely to end up with FD, but only because they want to redo the vote to allow a GR to override their decision with simple majority. Under these circumstances, why do you think it would still be a good idea to continue with the GR and not wait for the outcome of the "real" vote? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Mi, 20 mar 13, 06:47:32, Bart Martens wrote: > > Good question. See also for example bug 681659. I don't know why > pidgin-facebookchat would belong in section main while flashplugin-nonfree > would belong section contrib. Both packages contain software that can freely > be redistributed but require software outside of the distribution to function. > Where to draw the line ? Not sure flashplugin-nonfree is a good example here, since it is only a downloader for non-free software (the plugin itself). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for Votes - GR: Debian project members
On Ma, 05 oct 10, 15:47:05, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Bernhard R. Link [101005 11:55]: > > My best guess yet is that this proposal is to tell DAM that we do not oppose > > second-class Debian Developers with less privileges, so that they may add > > second-class DDs in the hope that this will encourage more non-packagers to > > become DDs (albeit then second class ones). > > Okay, second try after I got some replies in private discussion. Trying > to move this to debian-vote in the hope that I am not the only one so > slow on the uptake, so others might benefit from it: > > This proposal is to tell DAM we are not opposed to having Debian > Developers with less privileges than DDs currently get by default, > so that DAM is more likely to implement something were people may get > only a subset of the current initial privileges in the hope that this > will encourage more non-packagers to become DD (with then less privileges > than currently but in a way they do not feel like second class citizens). I might be mistaken, since I'm not a native English speaker, but you seem to imply that having DDs with less "privileges" can be a bad thing. If my hunch was right, do you think that people might not want to join the Project due to the fear of becoming "second-class citizens" or are there some other problems that you expect? Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
