Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009 Results
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > I wish you contacted me about this before so that we could find a > > solution to get your vote counted. > > Just a comment: if Luigi sent a valid vote during the correct time frame, and > it was rejected because of a software bug, shouldn't it still count, even if > the problem is not brought up until later, even if you have to add this > information in manually or after the fact? No. He got a mail saying there was a problem with his ballot. Had he contacted the secretary during the voting period something could have been done about this - at worst counting his vote manually. Now it is too late. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-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
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Neil McGovern wrote: > Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment: > > AMENDMENT START > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian > Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements > to initiate one are too small. > > Therefore the Debian project resolves that > a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor > a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] > b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], > as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting > period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(2Q) > developers to sponsor the resolution. > c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] > > (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). > > AMENDMENT END > > Rationale: This is basically s/K/Q/. It keeps the 'immediate override > delegate decision' as twice as hard as proposing a GR. seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > PROPOSAL START > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian > Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements > to initiate one are too small. > > Therefore the Debian project resolves that > a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor > a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] > b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], > as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting > period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) > developers to sponsor the resolution. > c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] > > (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). > > PROPOSAL END seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: > as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General > Resolution. The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us screaming GR. Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time. Not appreciated. Not at all. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-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
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the > > Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my > "preferred" choices second, the rest third. So in effect you prefer the options that do not require supermajority to those that do. Or at least make it more likely that they will win. This ballot sucks. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-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
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > In light of the Secretary's claims that the above GR would give him the
> > power to amend the text of the DFSG even though it says nothing of the sort,
I am sure if he actually did that we could override him. I hope that
would not be necessary however.
> > I would ask that the proposer withdraw this resolution (which in effect is a
> > non-binding position statement, contradicting the text of the DFSG as many
> > of us understand it) and draft a resolution in its place that disambiguates
> > the DFSG.
>
> Peter, I too would prefer if you did, for the sake of clarity. But if you
> will, then please do it soon. Minimal time for discussion period has passed,
> and due to the urgency of the situation I don't want to wait much longer
> before
> calling for vote.
Feel free to propose an amendment. I might accept it.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > This will need wording to change the SC > > Since the proponents have not yet formulated a new version for the > changes to the foundation documents, here it is. This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded. If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC they will need to propose an amendmend. As proposed this clarifies my and other people's view of what our foundation documents mean. You are welcome to add a note/comment/explanation to the SC, but this doesn't modify it. Thanks. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
call for seconds: on firmware (was: on firmware (possible proposal))
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote: > I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway. > > I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option): I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution: | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into | hardware components in order to make the component function properly. | It is not code that is run on the host CPU. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as so-called blobs, | with no source or further documentation that lets us learn how it works | or interacts with the hardware in question. By excluding such firmware | from Debian we exclude users that require such devices from installing | our operating system, or make it unnecessarily hard for them. | | Therefore the Debian project resolves that | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not | require it, | b) we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from | components of our operating system, and | c) such firmware can and should be part of our official installation media. Looking for seconds now. Thanks, weasel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: on firmware (possible proposal)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > > | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed > > | to be run on the host CPU. Often this firmware is already required at > > | install time in order to use network or storage devices. > > "Firmware is data [...]" Firmware is like porn, I know it when I see it. :) This isn't meant to be an exact definition, but more of a guideline. That being said, if s/data/software/ makes you happy then we can do that. Also, I was asked to s/BLOB/blob/ which seems fine to me too. Unless anything comes up I'll propose this later today. Thanks, -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on firmware (possible proposal)
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote: > | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed to be > | run on the host CPU. A postscript file isn't firmware simply because you can upload it to a printer. So, maybe slightly better: | Firmware is data that is loaded into hardware components in order to | make the component function properly. It is not code that is run on | the host CPU. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on firmware (possible proposal)
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway. I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option): | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed to be | run on the host CPU. Often this firmware is already required at install time | in order to use network or storage devices. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as BLOBs, with no source or | further documentation that lets us learn how it works or interacts with the | hardware in question. By excluding such firmware from Debian we exclude | users that require such devices from installing our operating system, or | make it unnecessarily hard for them. | | Therefore the Debian project resolves that | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not | require it, | b) we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from | components of our operating system, and | c) such firmware can and should be part of our official installation media. Point (c) could mean that for now such data may stay in the main section of our archive but that we should look into creating a new, seperate section for firmware that does not come with source. But that's an implementation detail that need not be part of the GR. Comments? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > For reference, this will now not take place, as the original GR has been > > amended to not include the decision reversal text. > > I find it mildly entertaining that this vote did not take place > because apparently it takes "a couple of days, [...] and sometimes > longer" [0] to set up an "immediate" vote. Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold. The immediate vote then is held to see if it stays on hold until the real GR is done. So the only person who'd be in his rights to complain is Joerg and he publicly said that he didn't need this immediate vote. Peter -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another one?
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?
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another one?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote: > I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds. > > | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are > not > | working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not > provided by > | the project with as much help as might be possible, useful or required, > nor > | opportunities to join the project. > | > | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve contributors > more > | closely with and within the project so that they can get both recognition > and > | the necessary tools to do their work. > | > | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce > mailinglist is > | not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large part of our > | community. We invite the DAM and all the contributors to further develop > their > | ideas in close coordination with other members of the project, and to > present a > | new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future. > | > | Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within > | the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general > | resolution. 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 don't have a wording for this yet, but I could probably come up with one if requested. Opinions? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call for seconds - DC concept (was: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept)
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote: > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. I hereby propose this alternate option/amendment and am asking for seconds. | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are not | working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not provided by | the project with as much help as might be possible, useful or required, nor | opportunities to join the project. | | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve contributors more | closely with and within the project so that they can get both recognition and | the necessary tools to do their work. | | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce mailinglist is | not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large part of our | community. We invite the DAM and all the contributors to further develop their | ideas in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present a | new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future. | | Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within | the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general | resolution. Cheers, weasel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> This completely ignores that now there are other proposals, like the ones of
> Lars and Raphaël, and suggest that the only path we want to explore it the one
> drafed by Joerg.
Well. Joerg and Christoph (and maybe James*) are the delegated DAMs
under our constitution. As such defining membership and admitting new
members is their delegated duty and privilege.
So either we, the project, a) work with them and try to convince them of
the merits of alternate proposals, or b) we could force a system they
aren't convinced of upon them using a GR - probably not something that
will work very well in the long run, or c) we replace them or d) we do
away with the position entirely.
I think that we can have a fruitful discussion involving the DAM and
everybody who brings their bikeshed to the table if we just try and
don't start out with attributing malice, deceit or dishonesty to the
other party. We should instead conduct our exchange believing that
everybody involved is trying to further the project.**
I am grateful for your patch to paragraph three. It now says what I had
intended much more clearly. That we we are asking not only the DAM but
also the others who had similar prosoals: Bring your ideas to the
table and talk.
> The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are not
> working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not provided
> by
> the project with as much help as might be possible, useful or required, nor
> opportunities to join the project.
>
> We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve contributors
> more
> closely with and within the project so that they can get both recognition
> and
> the necessary tools to do their work.
>
> We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce
> mailinglist is
> not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large part of our
> community. We invite the DAM and all the contributors to further develop
> their
> ideas in close coordination with other members of the project, and to
> present a
> new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future.
>
> Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within
> the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general
> resolution.
For those watching at home, the difference may not be immediately
obvious. I have indicated the affected lines in this wdiff.
} The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are
} not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not
} provided by the project with as much help as might be possible, useful
}* or [-required.-] {+required, nor opportunities to join the project.+}
}
} We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve
}* contributors more closely with {+and within+} the project so that they can
} get both recognition and the necessary tools to do their work.
}
} We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce
} mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large
}* part of our community. We invite the DAM {+and all the contributors+} to
}* further develop [-his-] {+their+} ideas in close coordination with other
members of
} the project, and to present a new and improved proposal on the project's
} mailinglists in the future.
}
} Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within
} the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general
} resolution.
I like those changes. thanks.
--
weasel
* James apparently removed himself from all the mail aliases and groups
but didn't officially retire from his post as DAM, so who knows.
** And if you don't agree with somebody don't question their motive,
question their judgement instead if you really have to (***).
*** Or, put differently, they aren't mean, they are just stupid
(or just the other way around and it's your judgement that
should be revised :).
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce > > | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large > > | part of our community. We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas > > | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present > > | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future, > > | at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation. > > I would like this to be phrased a bit stronger. IMHO any major change in how > project membership is handeld should be endorsed by the whole project by GR. > Would you be willing to add something like this? My initial version didn't even have the 'at least two ..' wording in it, instead I expected it to read as "present on lists, wait for feedback, only then implement". Maybe it could be written as | [..]We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future. | | Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within | the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general | resolution. How would that sound? Do you have a specific other wording you would suggest? -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Do you propose to drop the immediate vote, but keep the fact the > decision is put on hold according to 4.2.2.2, until the final vote on > this GR ? That is exactly what he proposed in a different email in this thread. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)
Hi, I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. The text I'm thinking about is currently this: | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are | not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not | provided by the project with as much help as might be possible, useful | or required. | . | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve | contributors more closely with the project so that they can get both | recognition and the necessary tools to do their work. | . | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large | part of our community. We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future, | at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation. This is not a call for seconds yet, but a request for comments. So, any changes that should be made before it gets proposed, if it will? Cheers, weasel -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192 > > > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided > > > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided > > > [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > This ballot is wrong. > > It is *not* a membership reform. > > Suggested wording then? Since the only really new thing in this proposal, and this is what it's all about at its core, is the creation of Debian Contributors as a defined set of people where previously they were just not DDs, maybe "Proposal on Creation of Debian Contributors delayed until GR decided by GR" "Proposal on Creation of Debian Contributors stands until decided by GR" -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote: >4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit > out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a > best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is > necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in > the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally > allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a > license that complies with the DFSG. Sorry, I fail to parse this. You lost me somewhere around 'like all udebs'. Could you please explain this in something that does not try to compete with german sentences in length? :) (Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license complies with the DFSG" a no-op?) Thanks, Peter -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: All: Account creation latency
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: > If you get elected, what will you do to prevent people from waiting > for weeks (and usually for months) to see their account created after > DAM approval? I think the "problem" would be trivial to fix. The DAM should be the party that makes the *policy decision*, and then DSA should be tasked with actually creating the account, and keyring-maint with adding the key to the debian keyring. Unfortunately there is no interest on Joerg's side to even consider anything other than directly creating the accounts in ldap himself. So IMHO the DAM is - at least partially - to blame for the situation himself. Peter -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for future handling of the non free section GR
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > =2DBEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > - - -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =3D-= > =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > ## > > So, you have a pgp message, that is being mangled by the qp > encoding. Either use a PGP/MIME message, or make sure your mailer > does not mangle the signed message. > > % mailx -s 'My vote' [EMAIL PROTECTED] < ballot.asc > > Should work in any case. Shouldn't the software be able to cope with _transfer_ encodings? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Final call for votes for future handling of the non free section GR
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > =2DBEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > - - -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =3D-= > =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > ## > > So, you have a pgp message, that is being mangled by the qp > encoding. Either use a PGP/MIME message, or make sure your mailer > does not mangle the signed message. > > % mailx -s 'My vote' [EMAIL PROTECTED] < ballot.asc > > Should work in any case. Shouldn't the software be able to cope with _transfer_ encodings? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Acknowledgement for your vote
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Anand Kumria wrote: > Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted. > > But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now and replaced? no. ElGamal signing != ElGamal encryption. (20 vs 17) Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Acknowledgement for your vote
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Anand Kumria wrote: > Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted. > > But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now and replaced? no. ElGamal signing != ElGamal encryption. (20 vs 17) Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist > > tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's > > proposed new social contract. > > Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have a > tag around all of section 5, which causes it to be shown struck through > on my browser (Mozilla). It might have been improper to put > around a whole that way. I changed it by moving the deletions > inside the elements, which (somewhat awkwardly) marks all the > text as deleted but not the list item itself. How is it now? Better thanks. Peter, missing good old galeon 1.2 -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:51:55AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist > > tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's > > proposed new social contract. > > Hmm, that might be a disagreement between browsers. I have a > tag around all of section 5, which causes it to be shown struck through > on my browser (Mozilla). It might have been improper to put > around a whole that way. I changed it by moving the deletions > inside the elements, which (somewhat awkwardly) marks all the > text as deleted but not the list item itself. How is it now? Better thanks. Peter, missing good old galeon 1.2 -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to > read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html > > I've used and tags to mark insertions and deletions, and > I tried to split them into more logical chunks than wdiff chose. > I have also added stylesheet directives to color the insertions and > deletions differently. Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's proposed new social contract. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to > read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html > > I've used and tags to mark insertions and deletions, and > I tried to split them into more logical chunks than wdiff chose. > I have also added stylesheet directives to color the insertions and > deletions differently. Thanks, that makes it really easier to read. One problem does exist tho: Your version still has a section 5, which is not in Branden's proposed new social contract. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying GR
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Martin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:24:21PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > This is the third call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone Proof > > SSD vote tallying GR. > > I'm not responding to this CFV, as: > > * The PGP signature is bad on the CFV messages, so I'm assuming they >are forged. [-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon Jun 16 15:05:36 2003) --] gpg: Signature made Sat Jun 14 04:24:36 2003 CEST using DSA key ID BF24424C gpg: Good signature from "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" [-- End of PGP output --] > * The message comes through in some garbled form of quoted printable >that my mail program cannot interpret, so the form is corrupted. Fine here. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpSu9ec3nNm3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying GR
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Martin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:24:21PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > This is the third call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone Proof > > SSD vote tallying GR. > > I'm not responding to this CFV, as: > > * The PGP signature is bad on the CFV messages, so I'm assuming they >are forged. [-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon Jun 16 15:05:36 2003) --] gpg: Signature made Sat Jun 14 04:24:36 2003 CEST using DSA key ID BF24424C gpg: Good signature from "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" [-- End of PGP output --] > * The message comes through in some garbled form of quoted printable >that my mail program cannot interpret, so the form is corrupted. Fine here. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RAMSTINN
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > HI -THIS RANCES -YES I WELL VOTE Please sign your nomination to run for DPL. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpGk97Ye3iXC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RAMSTINN
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > HI -THIS RANCES -YES I WELL VOTE Please sign your nomination to run for DPL. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ msg02373/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal - non-free software removal
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, John Goerzen wrote: > F. That a new version of the Debian Social Contract with the Free > Software Community be released, with the same content as the > existing version, save for the following amendments: I wonder what kind of majority is required to modify the Social Contract or the DFSG. I'ld expect them to have at least the same protection as the Constitution itself. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpJ41zEdgOp1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal - non-free software removal
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, John Goerzen wrote: > F. That a new version of the Debian Social Contract with the Free > Software Community be released, with the same content as the > existing version, save for the following amendments: I wonder what kind of majority is required to modify the Social Contract or the DFSG. I'ld expect them to have at least the same protection as the Constitution itself. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ msg01881/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote: [subscribers automatically whitelisted] > No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too. Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also work. The rest would be manually reviews by a team of moderators. If someone implements this I might be willing to join that team. > If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to > /dev/null (so to speak). default should still be post. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpSQahmikvGf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote: [subscribers automatically whitelisted] > No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too. Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also work. The rest would be manually reviews by a team of moderators. If someone implements this I might be willing to join that team. > If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to > /dev/null (so to speak). default should still be post. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ msg01820/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. me too yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpBQbQtRnez1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. me too yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ msg01811/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Election status
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002, Siward de Groot wrote: > P.S. Manoj never let out that Asterix voted for Raphael ! While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. Is such a thing possible? yours, peter This is not to say that I don't trust our current secretary, Manoj did a great job so far. Thanks a lot. -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgperEcgJOfpl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Election status
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002, Siward de Groot wrote: > P.S. Manoj never let out that Asterix voted for Raphael ! While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. Is such a thing possible? yours, peter This is not to say that I don't trust our current secretary, Manoj did a great job so far. Thanks a lot. -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ msg01676/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
