Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2015: Call for votes [corrected]

[Rémi Vanicat]

Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> Hi,

Hi,

[...]

> There are 4 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
> 1 and 4. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
> Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
> reach your last choice.  Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
> than 3.

I'm maybe be a little late for this, but at the end of this paragraph,
you meant ``... or larger than 4'' right ?

[...]


-- 
Rémi Vanicat


-- 
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/87pp7olcbd@debian.org

Re: DM vote (was Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2010 Results)

[Rémi Vanicat]

Joey Hess  writes:

> | 2010 |  886 | 44.648 |   459 |436 |  88 | 49.210 |   9.76513 |
>
> If I count right, there are 112 Debian Maintainers not able to be represented
> in the above.
>
> I wonder if conducting a parallel vote of the DMs, for information only,
> would be worth doing next year? It would be interesting to
> see a) how many DMs care about being enfranchised enough to vote
> and 

I not sure that this would be a clear sign of enfranchisement, as I not
sure that I would vote in a vote I know serve mostly no purpose as often
as I vote when my vote as a real influence over the result of the vote.

> b) how closely their preferences match to those of the DDs.

I'm concern by the problem of legitimacy that could happen if one can
prove that the elected DPL would have not been elected if DM vote had
count. That say I'm not sure this is really a problem, but it worth
considering. 

[...]

-- 
Rémi Vanicat


-- 
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/87k4s6i91q@debian.org

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2010: Call for votes

[Rémi Vanicat]

Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 7efb5344-bc61-46d2-b86c-3d1b144e1236
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: Stefano Zacchiroli
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: Wouter Verhelst
> [ 5 ] Choice 3: Charles Plessy
> [ 3 ] Choice 4: Margarita Manterola
> [ 4 ] Choice 5: None Of The Above
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-- 
Rémi Vanicat


pgpZyQC8771tP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Rémi Vanicat]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that we promised to deliver a 100% free operating system
>   (Social Contract #1);
>
>3. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>   non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
>   been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
>   free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>   release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
>   system is complete (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008).
>
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the
>   last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the
>   kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues
>   have not yet been addressed;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
>
>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 as part of Debian Lenny as
>   long as we are legally allowed to do so.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
>
>
> Option 3 (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
>   issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
>   Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November
>   2008);
>
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
>   best-effort process.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

I second those 3 option as stated above
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFJDxhtRmmq/NCejAsRAgGAAJ9URJc8DNYh5eRMO1jyqqZ2F+z8ygCePO1w
nlznelqF84I9Qh1t9fnoXvA=
=FHNH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Rémi Vanicat]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I propose the following General Resolution.  If you wish to second only one
> or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
> can account them separately.
>
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>   non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
>   been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
>   free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>   release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
>   system is complete.
>
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny
>
>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.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

I hereby second both the first and second proposition

- -- 
Rémi Vanicat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFJBhcfRmmq/NCejAsRAtjPAJ9sNTEnYYAoM4NfaAspXNx+mI/abgCbBAsG
695w+deC0o2PrCVWqldscec=
=8ysi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Rémi Vanicat]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
> enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
> resolution is:
> --
>  - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the 
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
>  - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members;
>
>  - Because of the strong opposition to the method used to prepare, discuss and
>decide the announced changes, and without judging their validity;
>
>  - In accordance with the paragraphs 4.1(3) and 4.2(2.2) of the Constitution;
>
> The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, decides:
>
>   The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
>   mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are
>   suspended [§4.1(3)].  This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)].
>
> In addition, the developers make the following statement:
>
>   The delegates of the Project leader are asked to not take decisions that are
>   not consensual about the membership procedures of the Project, and to let
>   these procedures change by way of a general resolution if no consensus
>   can be reached.
> --

seconded
- -- 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFJBbsKRmmq/NCejAsRArIuAJ98TcMzmkdTacfsP+lMWMYJixpu/gCdE3aj
GVW75eCbnHCNstQnKhFYoIY=
=XFzY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]