Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx , 2012-05-08, > 23:28: > >http://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002 > > Hmm. According to this page, the proposal[0] was seconded by Steve > Langasek. However, Steve seconded only the draft[1], which has > different wording. As the proposer accepted these changes (or originally made them), and Steve has not objected under §A.1.5 or §A.1.6, that doesn't really affect anything. [And based on the number of seconds, the only thing that would happen is resetting the discussion period to exactly the same period we have now.] Don Armstrong -- Everyone has to die. And in a hundred years nobody's going to inquire just how most people died. The best thing is to do it in the way that strikes your fancy most. -- Kenzaburō Ōe _Silent Cry_ p5 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- 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/2012051957.gu3...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
* Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx , 2012-05-08, 23:28: http://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002 Hmm. According to this page, the proposal[0] was seconded by Steve Langasek. However, Steve seconded only the draft[1], which has different wording. [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2012/05/msg8.html [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2012/05/msg00011.html -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20120509235015.ga4...@jwilk.net
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2012-05-09, 00:15: considering that the resolution procedure already takes into account "make changes to correct minor errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects within 24 hours", The purpose of A.1.6. is to facilitate polishing the GR text before the vote... I hope similar changes could be accepted on the website if they'll ever be spotted. ...because it's not acceptable to tamper with it later on. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20120509174252.ga5...@jwilk.net
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:21:10AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Hi all, > > I hope that our constitution has the answer to that question. If a GR needed > self-locking dispositions, that would go against the idea of having a > constitution at all. My personal opinion is that for things that should not > be > changed apart with a GR, the Constitution offers the status of Foundation > Document. So if the diversity statement is not a foundation document, I do > not > see what would forbid to change it after the GR. Note that a foundation document requires a 3:1 majority to change it, while a posistion statement only requires a simple majority. Kurt -- 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/20120509170534.ga23...@roeckx.be
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:15:42AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That would not stop to publish stuff like translations of the statement
> on www.debian.org , pretty much as the fact that the Constitution itself
> has been published upon hasn't (luckily!) stopped translation of it to
^
voted
> be published.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
Le Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > > Q: What will be the procedure for maintaining/updating the statement, > once voted? > A: The gist of the statement will be fixed by the GR. But in order to > avoid needing a vote for every minor tweak, language improvements > can be applied by the -www team as for other parts of www.d.o and > more substantial changes, that do not change the spirit, can be > discussed on -project. > > Given that this statement is absent in the actual GR text to be voting > on, are voters to assume it will or will not have any bearing on the > outcome of the vote? > > Personally, I think it should not; although I'm sure opinions will > vary. Given that, I don't think its possible to say one way or > another. > > So, in order to have a definitive conclusion on this matter, shouldn't > it be included in the actual GR text, or as an alternative, or as an > amendment? Hi all, I hope that our constitution has the answer to that question. If a GR needed self-locking dispositions, that would go against the idea of having a constitution at all. My personal opinion is that for things that should not be changed apart with a GR, the Constitution offers the status of Foundation Document. So if the diversity statement is not a foundation document, I do not see what would forbid to change it after the GR. One problem is that the defintion of "position statements about issues of the day" (section 4.1.5) is not clear. Much of the driving force for this GR to be voted is its ceremonial aspect, otherwise we would be also voting on Debian's "Posiiton on Software Patents", and would be digging our past decistions to see if in retrospect they need a GR as well (I am not advocating that). If a "position statement" is more somthing like official press releases than a law, then there would be no problem changing the diversity statement as long as it is not in a way that suggests that the updated version is the one voted in 2012. Perhaps native speakers, experienced members, or our Secretary can clarify what "position statements about issues of the day" means, and what is the consequence of having "issues of the day" limiting "position statements". Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20120508222110.gb32...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> So, in order to have a definitive conclusion on this matter, shouldn't
> it be included in the actual GR text, or as an alternative, or as an
> amendment?
The only text subject to vote is the one that will be in the GR.
Everything else is non normative.
That said, the voted text will remain accessible from
http://www.debian.org/vote/ as future memory of what the project as
voted upon, together with all other resolutions.
That would not stop to publish stuff like translations of the statement
on www.debian.org , pretty much as the fact that the Constitution itself
has been published upon hasn't (luckily!) stopped translation of it to
be published.
Similarly, and considering that the resolution procedure already takes
into account "make changes to correct minor errors (for example,
typographical errors or inconsistencies) or changes which do not alter
the meaning, providing noone objects within 24 hours", I hope similar
changes could be accepted on the website if they'll ever be spotted. If
any fellow Debian Bureaucrat [1] would not consider that acceptable, I'm
pretty sure they will take the liberty to start a GR to stop the actions
of the (evil) WWW team who is trying to subvert a previous GR.
Yes, we do have a rigid Constitution that, in this particular case, is
forcing us to vote on something that was already consensual on -project.
Within that limits, let's try to keep things simple.
Cheers.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/04/msg0.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > A new General Resolution has been started about a diversity > statement. > > More details are at: > http://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002 Question on procedure: The initiating GR mail included the following statement Q: What will be the procedure for maintaining/updating the statement, once voted? A: The gist of the statement will be fixed by the GR. But in order to avoid needing a vote for every minor tweak, language improvements can be applied by the -www team as for other parts of www.d.o and more substantial changes, that do not change the spirit, can be discussed on -project. Given that this statement is absent in the actual GR text to be voting on, are voters to assume it will or will not have any bearing on the outcome of the vote? Personally, I think it should not; although I'm sure opinions will vary. Given that, I don't think its possible to say one way or another. So, in order to have a definitive conclusion on this matter, shouldn't it be included in the actual GR text, or as an alternative, or as an amendment? Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=MM3=2pkustn27zrnfdnnikoxsaowwnuwc76spvfww4...@mail.gmail.com
Re: General Resolution: Diversity statement
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:28:31PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> A new General Resolution has been started about a diversity
> statement.
>
> More details are at:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002
Considering that the statement contained in the GR is the result of a
fruitful and lengthy discussion on debian-project [1], I hereby reduce
the minimum discussion period for this GR to 1 week as per Constitution
§4.2.4.
Cheers.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/03/msg00048.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
