Re: Question (Re: Call for votes for "GR: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader")
Le dimanche 08 octobre 2006 20:23, Russ Allbery a écrit : > The above are just attempted summaries of the differences between two > position statements. You really want to read the full statements > themselves and see if you agree more with one or the other (or with > neither). Well, it does summarize pretty well: 1/ says the Debian Project does not object to the experiment and it is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project 2/ says it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian Pretty much the same. The only difference is that 1/ wishes success to Dunc Tank, which makes Debian look nice with it. > In practice, I think either choice 1 or choice 2 is going to be > effectively the same in terms of its effect on the project; the real > choice is between one or the other means of saying "we support AJ as DPL" > or not saying that (choice 3). > > I think it would have been somewhat clearer if it were all on the same > ballot as the recall, but I do understand the reasoning. Agreed. Thanks, -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question (Re: Call for votes for "GR: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader")
Le dimanche 08 octobre 2006 01:53, Debian Project Secretary a écrit : > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > a65763d3-b1e2-4530-8ff8-aa5915274eb4 > [ ] Choice 1: Re-affirm DPL, wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank > [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm DPL, do not endorse nor support his other projects > [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hi, I'm unsure about how I should vote this. Could someone please tell me how not supporting nor endorsing Dunc-Tank would be incompatible with wishing it success? I understand that Debian does not have to endorse it, but I don't think it means wishing it failure, does it? Thanks. PS: please CC me -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape: > >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>>> On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly: >>>>>> The only people it made happy are extremists. >>> >>> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits >>> modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming >> >> Yes, I think it is an extreme interpretation of the SC. > > People espousing what you consider en extreme interpretation > of a documents are now extremists? I shall refrain, from the point of Extermists in the scope of interpretation of the SC, yes. > politeness, from characterizing people who hold whatI feel is a > silly and moronic interpretation of the SC. There isn't anything to do with politess. If I hurted you, them please accept my apologies. But I'm frank enough to express my view as I feel them. As a non-native English speaker, the vocabulary might not always be appropriate. >> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, >> the GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will >> make Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological. > > Could you tell me why it is necesary tomodify wonderful pieces > of software like vim or emacs, and how it makes Debian more free? I > mean, those authors have poured their heart and soul into those > programs. Because if we hadn't the right to modify them, we wouldn't be able to fix them. Because if their author died, we wouldn't be able to get any more support for them, nor to make them live and hence we'd have to switch to another support tool. There are technical arguments in favour of Free Software. > If you do not see how starting with a GNU Manifesto and > modifying it to be Manoj's manifesto is a freedom that can be > coveted, I am afraid I do not see how you understand the concept of > freedom of software actually works. So, in real life, you shall be free to get a copy of some random novel, change few life, and sell it as Manoj novel? Either I do consider it as software, and in that case you are right. Or I don't because the hardware is just a container and the work could have an existance out of a computer. A program has no meaning out of a computer. The GNU Manifesto does. I know we're not GNU, but by reading the four freedom, it is quite clear that GNU considers Software as computer programs. YMMV. > People have created essays by modifying other peoples works, > with proper attribution (this is based on, but not the same as views > and essays by foo, and represents my views, not theirs, but the ideas > are not mine originally, I stand on the shoulders of giants .) People created essays by getting _inspired_ by others' work. So does the research world work. > Being able to create new, derivative essays tailored to my > needs and views but based on works by other people is a right that > being able to modify software gives me. Even by taking entire paragraph with the exact wording? Please note I don't consider essays and program documentation on the same ground. >> It will surely not improve Debian freedom but bring a new burden for >> maintainers who will have to repackage upstream tarballs because >> some people have an fundamentalist interpretation of the SC. > > Or some authors bundle non-free works with free works, and > yes,, that is a burden. But promoting software freedom is not without > costs: every freedom comes at a price (perhaps not quite the blood of > patriots, but still). Then, shall I say I do promote Free Programs instead of Free software? >>>>>> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. >>>>>> Also, I can't see a definition of what Software is. I've not >>>>>> seen any definition going beyond that (of wordnet) >>> >>> ,[ From Wikipedia: ] >>> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware >> ... >>> | was first proposed by Alan Turing in an essay. >>> ` >> >> There is no such definition at debian.org either. Where on our web >> site can we find what software means for Debian? Maybe I missed it? > > Is there a definition of the word definition? Is there a > definition of the word "is", to you Clinton watchers out there? Do we > define every wrod on the web site? This is ridiculous. > > Wikipedia, and the weight of computer sceince history, > strongly support the software/hardware/wetware mode of classification > as being
Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the >> GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make >> Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological. > > Actually, I'd rather we could keep them. Ah! So, after all, not everything would be either black or white? > And we do have an ideology, right there in the first sentence of the > Social Contract. I've never wanted to consider it that way, because I can promote it without any political arguments, at least. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly: >>>> The only people it made happy are extremists. > > Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits > modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming Yes, I think it is an extreme interpretation of the SC. > majority that voted for the proposal are all extremeists? As > well as the people who did not vote to revert the proposal in a later > GR? > > What a wonderful world you live in. Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological. It will surely not improve Debian freedom but bring a new burden for maintainers who will have to repackage upstream tarballs because some people have an fundamentalist interpretation of the SC. >>>> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. >>>> Also, I can't see a definition of what Software is. I've not seen >>>> any definition going beyond that (of wordnet) > > ,[ From Wikipedia: ] > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware ... > | was first proposed by Alan Turing in an essay. > ` There is no such definition at debian.org either. Where on our web site can we find what software means for Debian? Maybe I missed it? >>>> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian >>>> counts almost 1000 developers > > Let us examine your thesis in more detail. > constitution: 86 out of357 24.08963% > logo license: 107 out of497 21.52917% > New logo: 143 out of509 28.09430% > Condorcet:160 out of804 19.90049% > Section 4.1.5:254 out of928 27.37068% > non-free section: 491 out of908 54.07488% > Editorial:216 out of911 23.71020% > Release Sarge:415 out of909 45.65456% > Declassify mail: 305 out of967 31.54084% > > By no means does the Editorial changes vote stand out as > having low turnout; we generally get 20-30% turnout, unless the issue > is seen as a hot button one a priori. Now, the vote announcement was > sent to d-d-a no less than 4 times. It is on a mailing list meant to > be read by every developer. The mail said it was modifying the > SC. What would you call people who did not bother to read that email, > and chose not to exercise their right to vote? I said the vote is valid but you cannot draw conclusions. Nothing more. > If people think the quorum requirements are too low, I would > not be averse to raising K and Q to be higher than their current > values. I indeed think the quorum is too low. >>>> and considering that many pros are convinced they have been >>>> deceived. > > I see. If you are saying that they voted on the GR, but felt > deceived by title "editorial changes", then, in essence, they voted > on a GR that changes a foundation document, where the full text of > the GR was available on Debian's web site, and had been sent to their > mail box no less than 4 times, and they call not reading the actual > text "being deceived"? I would label it as gross dereliction of duty > as a Debian developer exercising their franchise, Sloth, > incompetence, or illiteracy. No, people suddenly decided that software was "any bits in Debian" and it opened a door to their interpretation. This is a deception. My definition is still computer programs and their documentation. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not >> subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between >> simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as >> beer!!!) > > Yeah, um, if you had closed the bug, I would have reopened it immediately. > Unless you persuade the release managers that the GFDL complies with the > DFSG, amend the DFSG so that it *does* comply, or invoke the technical > committee, this is a release-critical issue for etch as listed on > <http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt>; playing BTS tennis isn't > going to make that go away. I'm sorry, but whether something is a > release-critical bug is just not your decision to make personally. I did not do it anyway, because I don't think it would be a responsible attitude. It would be breaking the rules and I'm all against breaking the law. Either you respect rules or you leave. The only way to fix this is to change the rules. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote > > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have > > > tought about this. > > > > The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. > > Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of > this issue that are capable of acting like children. > > Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come > through my mailbox the first time. I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as beer!!!) Ain't life grand?!! -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have > tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a very good example of the silliness it leads to. You won't be surprised to see the same fundamentalists as involved in debian-legal crusades. I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternate proposal for Declassification of debian-private archives
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to > that list that are three or more years old, with the following > exceptions: > > - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed > will be contacted, and allowed between four and eight weeks > to comment; What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified? It looks like a kind of opt out to me. > - posts that reveal financial information about individuals or > organisations other than Debian, will have that information > removed; > > - - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published > - will be honoured; > + - If the author makes a resonable case that some material is > + sensitive, then that material is redacted from that post and any > + other post where it has been quoted Why is this necessary in addition to the following paragraph? Maybe I did not understand correctly. > + - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a > + post, any identifying information is redacted from that post, > + and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material > + is published. > > - posts of no historical or other relevance, such as vacation > - announcements, or posts that have no content after personal > + announcements, or posts that have no content after > information is removed, will not be published, unless the author > requests they be published; > > - comments by others who would be affected by the publication of > the post will also be taken into account by the declassification > team; > > - the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to > developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions Two weeks is too short to review, IMO. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: High Rate of ballot rejections this year
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > It was suggested that I also post the mailers that were used > in successfully sending a ballot to the voting engine, and here are > the results. I am attaching both the list of good mailers, as well > as the reasons for rejection of the ballot, with the MUA and count. > > I note that there were tweo succesful votes from people who > use Outlook (and no rejections). > > Mutt still impresses. Speaking about Emacsen mailers, there are not enough details because Emacsen usually use external packages (gpg.el, mailcrypt) to perform encryption and signing. You wouldn't conclude that Gnus/Mew/whatever do not it right sometimes, it wouldn't make sense. Regards, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: High Rate of ballot rejections this year
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > It was suggested that I also post the mailers that were used > in successfully sending a ballot to the voting engine, and here are > the results. I am attaching both the list of good mailers, as well > as the reasons for rejection of the ballot, with the MUA and count. > > I note that there were tweo succesful votes from people who > use Outlook (and no rejections). > > Mutt still impresses. Speaking about Emacsen mailers, there are not enough details because Emacsen usually use external packages (gpg.el, mailcrypt) to perform encryption and signing. You wouldn't conclude that Gnus/Mew/whatever do not it right sometimes, it wouldn't make sense. Regards, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates
En réponse à Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Same here - when I asked to have for the debian-desktop repository - > the > answer was that the new repository server will be set up, soon, and > having all repositories there is A MUST, we have to wait for it, it > will > be ready soon. Wiggy is working on it. Everyone pointed to Wiggy and > Wiggy ignored my mails, and my complaints about broken logics (that > you > describe above) either landed in /dev/null or with comments like that > logics is okay and I should fix mine. Well, how should we make any > progress with a such attitude of some core admins? The service is there (alioth.debian.org) but needs extra configuration to be usable. This is what we are waiting for. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: Questions for all candidates
En réponse à Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Same here - when I asked to have for the debian-desktop repository - > the > answer was that the new repository server will be set up, soon, and > having all repositories there is A MUST, we have to wait for it, it > will > be ready soon. Wiggy is working on it. Everyone pointed to Wiggy and > Wiggy ignored my mails, and my complaints about broken logics (that > you > describe above) either landed in /dev/null or with comments like that > logics is okay and I should fix mine. Well, how should we make any > progress with a such attitude of some core admins? The service is there (alioth.debian.org) but needs extra configuration to be usable. This is what we are waiting for. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> >> expensive modem connection. >> > >> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools >> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). >> >> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Ah :| So this is still not what we want. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> >> expensive modem connection. >> > >> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools >> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). >> >> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Ah :| So this is still not what we want. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> > >> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin >> > your >> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. >> >> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received >> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as >> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get? > > so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software? I set my mailer > to > toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin. Yeah i still had to > download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my > spam-assassin bin. Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real issue. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> expensive modem connection. > > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> > >> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin >> > your >> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. >> >> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received >> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as >> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get? > > so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software? I set my mailer to > toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin. Yeah i still had to > download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my > spam-assassin bin. Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real issue. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> expensive modem connection. > > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making > > > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable > > > collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and > people > > > who still have a problem should investigate > > > http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excellent tool. > > > > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do > it > > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow > and > > expensive modem connection. > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin > your > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. It does not work. What about those italian spams we received yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as being spam and send them anyway, what do you get? -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making > > > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable > > > collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and > people > > > who still have a problem should investigate > > > http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excellent tool. > > > > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do > it > > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow > and > > expensive modem connection. > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin > your > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. It does not work. What about those italian spams we received yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as being spam and send them anyway, what do you get? -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me. > > I object to this proposal in its entirety. How about giving arguments? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: >> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me. > > I object to this proposal in its entirety. How about giving arguments? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Withdrawal of the General Resolution about IRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > In a email (message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), > Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> withdrew his general resolution > proposal. However, this GR was co-sponsored by six other developers, > and I would like to hear from them what their intentions are. > > I would appreciate it if the sponsors would reply to > debian-vote@lists.debian.org with a signed message indicating whether > they are in agreement with withdrawing the support, or whether one or > more of them would like to become the primary sponsor of the GR and > carry on the process. > > I think we are in uncharted territory here, but my reading of > the constitution suggests that sponsors of a GR have > responsibilities, and with those come some rights, including one of > carrying on with a GR when one of their number changes their minds, > even if he were the original proposer. I am in agreement with withdrawing the resolution. - -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Pour information voir http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE78sUF3JE9mF3wMWcRAuA7AKCUH8jOWt9KjoSXL3319zCOcG7CzQCdEMeL qmjvo0paJjuxbindxYkbao8= =4j4Q -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Withdrawal of the General Resolution about IRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > In a email (message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), > Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> withdrew his general resolution > proposal. However, this GR was co-sponsored by six other developers, > and I would like to hear from them what their intentions are. > > I would appreciate it if the sponsors would reply to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a signed message indicating whether > they are in agreement with withdrawing the support, or whether one or > more of them would like to become the primary sponsor of the GR and > carry on the process. > > I think we are in uncharted territory here, but my reading of > the constitution suggests that sponsors of a GR have > responsibilities, and with those come some rights, including one of > carrying on with a GR when one of their number changes their minds, > even if he were the original proposer. I am in agreement with withdrawing the resolution. - -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Pour information voir http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE78sUF3JE9mF3wMWcRAuA7AKCUH8jOWt9KjoSXL3319zCOcG7CzQCdEMeL qmjvo0paJjuxbindxYkbao8= =4j4Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
