Re: Draft ballot
Thanks Kurt, this text looks good to me!
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 10:57:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is the draft ballot.
>
> Voting period starts 2022-09-18 00:00:00 UTC
> Votes must be received by 2022-10-01 23:59:59 UTC
>
>This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
>You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
>For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
>
>The details of the general resolution can be found at:
>https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
>
>Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of the
>vote by sending a signed mail to
> bal...@vote.debian.org
>with the subject "gr_non_free_firmware".
>
>To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
>
>
>HOW TO VOTE
>
>First, read the full text of the options.
>
>You might also want to read discussions at
>https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
>
>To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
>dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below. The
>dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
>
> gr_non_free_firmw...@vote.debian.org
>
>The form you need to fill out is contained bellow in this message, marked
>with two lines containing the characters '-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase
>anything between those lines, and do not change the choice names.
>
>There are 7 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between 1
>and 7. 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 7.
>
>You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
>equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
>choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
>
>To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more desirable
>than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of the above"
>choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
>"None of the above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
>"None of the above" choice by the voting software).
>
>Finally, mail the filled out ballot to:
>gr_non_free_firmw...@vote.debian.org.
>
>Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
>that your reply inserts.
>
>NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
>in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
>encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
>
>The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
>unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
>(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
>
>VOTING SECRECY
>
>This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
>of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
>a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
>that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
>that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted
>mail.
>
>VOTING FORM
>
>- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>575929bb-88aa-449d-8174-12e5ca850cd6
>[ ] Choice 1: Only one installer, including non-free firmware
>[ ] Choice 2: Recommend installer containing non-free firmware
>[ ] Choice 3: Provide installers with and without non-free firmware
>[ ] Choice 4: Installer with non-free software is not part of Debian
>[ ] Choice 5: Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer
>[ ] Choice 6: Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, keep both
>installers
>[ ] Choice 7: None Of The Above
>- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>--
>
>The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for
>this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary,
>is appended below.
>
>BALLOT OPTIONS
>
>Choice 1: Only one installer, including non-free firmware
>=
>
>We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware"
>section of the Debian archive on our official media (installer images and
>live images). The included firmware binaries will *normally* be enabled by
>default where the system determines that they are required, but where
>possible we will include ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu
>option, kernel command line etc.).
>
>When the installer/live system is running we will provide information to
>the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and non-free), and
>we will *also* store that information on the target system such that users
>will be able to find it later. Where
Re: Draft ballot voting secrecy GR
An other update:
Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "gr_vote_secrecy".
To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
HOW TO VOTE
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
gr_vote_secr...@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained below in this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
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 4.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of the above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"None of the above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None of the above" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: gr_vote_secr...@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
VOTING SECRECY
This is a non-secret vote. After the voting period is over the details on
who voted what will be published. During the vote itself the only
information that will be published is who voted.
You can encrypt your message to the voting system to keep your vote secret
until the end of the voting period. The software will also try to keep
your vote secret and will encrypt the reply it sends to you.
VOTING FORM
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6acf7f89-3eb2-492c-8715-98ae65b5f9d2
[ ] Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
[ ] Choice 2: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow
verification
[ ] Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting
[ ] Choice 4: None of the above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
BALLOT OPTIONS
Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
=
Rationale
=
During the vote for GR_2021_002, several developers said they were
uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
and ballot ranking would be public.
A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
tally sheet public.
Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
would still be valuable public information.
This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
conduct a vote via email. If the requirement for email voting is
removed, then an experiment is planned at least with the belenios voting
system [1]. belenios may provide better voter secrecy and an easier
web-based voting system than our current email approach.
If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
another constitutional amendment.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/yhotrixtz3aip...@roeckx.be
This proposal increases our reliance on the secretary's existing power
to decide how votes are conducted. The lack of an
Re: Draft ballot voting secrecy GR
Updated ballot:
Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "gr_vote_secrecy".
To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
HOW TO VOTE
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
gr_vote_secr...@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained below in this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
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 4.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "Further Discussion" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "Further Discussion"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"Further Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"Further Discussion" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: gr_vote_secr...@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
VOTING SECRECY
This is a non-secret vote. After the voting period is over the details on
who voted what will be published. During the vote itself the only
information that will be published is who voted.
You can encrypt your message to the voting system to keep your vote secret
until the end of the voting period. The software will also try to keep
your vote secret and will encrypt the reply it sends to you.
VOTING FORM
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6acf7f89-3eb2-492c-8715-98ae65b5f9d2
[ ] Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
[ ] Choice 2: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow
verification
[ ] Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting
[ ] Choice 4: None of the above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
BALLOT OPTIONS
Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
=
Rationale
=
During the vote for GR_2021_002, several developers said they were
uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
and ballot ranking would be public.
A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
tally sheet public.
Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
would still be valuable public information.
This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
conduct a vote via email. If the requirement for email voting is
removed, then an experiment is planned at least with the belenios voting
system [1]. belenios may provide better voter secrecy and an easier
web-based voting system than our current email approach.
If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
another constitutional amendment.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/yhotrixtz3aip...@roeckx.be
This proposal increases our reliance on the secretary's existing power
to decide how votes are conducted. The lack of an
Re: Draft ballot voting secrecy GR
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:09:20 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting > > > ince we can either have [...] I assume this was meant to start with "Since"? smcv
Re: Draft ballot voting secrecy GR
I don't think you updated this template after the last GR: On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 06:09:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > [ ] Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote > [ ] Choice 2: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and > allow verification > [ ] Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting > [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion AFAIK, FD doesn't exist anymore, this should be NOTA now. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft ballot
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> It doesn't count lines from the start, or anything like that.
> So yes, I think it works the way we would hope.
Note that the checking of the "title" is not very good:
# Checking the whole damned line was creating too many false positives
# Check the first word for each line in the ballot, and hope
# ballots are going to be sufficiently different
Can you put the proposal letters in at the start of the titles ?
That would probably make this check more effective.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Draft ballot
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
> it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
> look at the source.
The vote.d.o page had a link to this
https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/devotee.git/
which I looked at.
The code iterates over the lines of the message body. The key part
looks like this:
next unless /\[\s*([[:alnum:]])\s*\]\s*(Choice\s+([[:alnum:]]):\s*(.*))$/;
my $orig_rank = $1;
my $option = $2;
my $orig_candidate = $3;
It doesn't count lines from the start, or anything like that.
So yes, I think it works the way we would hope.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Draft ballot
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [ ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [ ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [ ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
>
> Obviously this is the draft before G+D. I had a question, though:
>
> May we reorder this when we send in our ballots, for example:
>
> > [ 1 ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
> > [ 2 ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [ 3 ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ 4 ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ 5 ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [ 6 ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [ 7 ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
>
> supposedly from some mad person who really likes prime-numbered
> options, and therefore ranks FD first because 7 is the biggest prime.
>
> If this is supported it makes voting a lot less confusing. I just
> wanted to check that this ballot will be interpreted the "obvious"
> way.
>
> If it is not supported, will it at least be detected ?
As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
look at the source.
Kurt
Re: Draft ballot
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> [ ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> [ ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> [ ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
Obviously this is the draft before G+D. I had a question, though:
May we reorder this when we send in our ballots, for example:
> [ 1 ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
> [ 2 ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> [ 4 ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> [ 5 ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> [ 6 ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> [ 7 ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
supposedly from some mad person who really likes prime-numbered
options, and therefore ranks FD first because 7 is the biggest prime.
If this is supported it makes voting a lot less confusing. I just
wanted to check that this ballot will be interpreted the "obvious"
way.
If it is not supported, will it at least be detected ?
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Re: Draft ballot
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:53:10PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head. What do you think there is no consensus about that is relevant? I did not see anybody sponsor Ian's GR yet, so it seems to me I have no other option than to proceed. Kurt
Re: Re: Draft ballot
How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
Re: Draft ballot
Hi Kurt, On 04.12.19 20:18, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote: Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options? Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL election also had the full text of the options. I'd then prefer the full text on this ballot too (if that counts). Regards, Micha
Re: Draft ballot
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote: > Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options? Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL election also had the full text of the options. Kurt
Re: Draft ballot
Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Re: Draft ballot
I don't know if the text should be in the ballot. I did ask someone who has not been in this discussion to review the ballot without the text. They are not a DD. But they found just the choice titles entirely mystifying. But it would be really long with all the text.
Re: draft ballot
On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 12:46:56AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Here is the draft ballot.
> >
> > Thanks for it!
> >
> > This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the
> > vote. I know that the vote will be secret (according to the
> > consttution), but in the recentish past there was a thread asking for
> > this detail to be specified in the ballot, and I think it should be
> > outlined in this one too.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot about it. I just copied the
> ballot from last year which didn't have that yet. This is the
> first secret vote to have this text, so comments are welcome. Here
> is the new draft:
I've also added a link to the list archives, new draft:
Voting period starts 2017-04-02 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2017-04-15 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
The details of the candidate's platform can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2017/platforms/
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a mail to
bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "leader2017".
To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the platform.
You might also want to read discussions with the candidates at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
leader2...@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
There are 3 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 3. 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.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None Of The Above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None Of The Above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"None Of The Above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None Of The Above" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: leader2...@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
VOTING SECRECY
This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4bfd7999-2252-4a5f-8f4e-e10ea7b8fdf8
[ ] Choice 1: Mehdi Dogguy
[ ] Choice 2: Chris Lamb
[ ] Choice 3: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-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: draft ballot
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Here is the draft ballot.
>
> Thanks for it!
>
> This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the
> vote. I know that the vote will be secret (according to the
> consttution), but in the recentish past there was a thread asking for
> this detail to be specified in the ballot, and I think it should be
> outlined in this one too.
Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot about it. I just copied the
ballot from last year which didn't have that yet. This is the
first secret vote to have this text, so comments are welcome. Here
is the new draft:
Voting period starts 2017-04-02 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2017-04-15 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
The details of the candidate's platform can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2017/platforms/
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a mail to
bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "leader2017".
To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the platform.
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
leader2...@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
There are 3 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 3. 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.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None Of The Above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None Of The Above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"None Of The Above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None Of The Above" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: leader2...@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
VOTING SECRECY
This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4bfd7999-2252-4a5f-8f4e-e10ea7b8fdf8
[ ] Choice 1: Mehdi Dogguy
[ ] Choice 2: Chris Lamb
[ ] Choice 3: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-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: draft ballot
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Here is the draft ballot. Thanks for it! This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the vote. I know that the vote will be secret (according to the consttution), but in the recentish past there was a thread asking for this detail to be specified in the ballot, and I think it should be outlined in this one too. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft ballot
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:21:11PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > Here is the draft ballot: > > Voting period starts Sun Apr 3 00:00:00 UTC 2016 > Votes must be received by Sat Apr 16 23:59:59 UTC 2016 I've changed that to: Voting period starts 2016-04-03 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2016-04-16 23:59:59 UTC Kurt
Re: draft ballot
also sprach Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be [2015-04-01 01:03 +0200]: Voting period starts Wed Apr 1 00:00:00 UTC 2015 Votes must be received by Tue Apr 14 23:59:59 UTC 2015 Or just go with a standard: 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC -- .''`. martin f. krafft madduck@d.o @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems die philosophie ist eine art rache an der wirklichkeit. - friedrich nietzsche digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: draft ballot
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:34:01AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 That should of course be: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 Kurt -- 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/20150331223512.ga23...@roeckx.be
Re: draft ballot
* Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be, 2015-04-01, 00:35: Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 That should of course be: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 I have a feature request for future ballots: Could you use a date format that is understood by date(1)? The current one is not: $ date -d '00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015' date: invalid date ‘00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015’ -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20150331225730.ga3...@jwilk.net
Re: draft ballot
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:57:30AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be, 2015-04-01, 00:35: Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 That should of course be: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 I have a feature request for future ballots: Could you use a date format that is understood by date(1)? The current one is not: $ date -d '00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015' date: invalid date '00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April 1st, 2015' So: Voting period starts Wed Apr 1 00:00:00 UTC 2015 Votes must be received by Tue Apr 14 23:59:59 UTC 2015 Kurt -- 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/20150331230359.ga24...@roeckx.be
Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: [ ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or concensus. [ ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concensus, leading to a new proposal. s/concensus/consensus/ ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:01:36PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: [ ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or concensus. [ ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concensus, leading to a new proposal. s/concensus/consensus/ ? Adjusted, thanks. Neil -- Roses are Red Violets are Blue In Soviet Russia Poem writes YOU!! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit : Hi all, Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply ASAP. Hi Neil The vote page has three mutually exclusive texts, with headers named Choice 1, Choice 2 and Choice 3 that respectively correspond to Choice 2, Choice 1 and Choice 3 in the ballot. I am affraid it is misleading. Shall I commit a change to the webpage to reorder and / or renumber the choices? http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002 Also, you removed and all the contributors in Choice2 of the ballot (Choice 1 of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of the GR, the wording of the choices has no role in iterpreting the GR, just go ahead if you disagree. Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:44:32AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit : Hi all, Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply ASAP. Hi Neil The vote page has three mutually exclusive texts, with headers named Choice 1, Choice 2 and Choice 3 that respectively correspond to Choice 2, Choice 1 and Choice 3 in the ballot. I am affraid it is misleading. Shall I commit a change to the webpage to reorder and / or renumber the choices? I've removed the numbers which should appear shortly. Also, you removed and all the contributors in Choice2 of the ballot (Choice 1 of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of the GR, the wording of the choices has no role in iterpreting the GR, just go ahead if you disagree. I don't agree I'm afraid. Thanks, Neil -- Yoe is _that_ gunnar? weasel yes Yoe what happened to his tires? towersbe He's shrunk. I think his wife washed him at too high a temperature. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
On 04/12/08 at 09:44 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:05:39AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit : Also, you removed and all the contributors in Choice2 of the ballot (Choice 1 of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of the GR, the wording of the choices has no role in iterpreting the GR, just go ahead if you disagree. I don't agree I'm afraid. I regret that you did not feedback when I made propositions for the ballot and that you do not explain why you disagree. I think that your wording is detrimental to the choice that is the least embarassing for Jörg (or second least, after further discussion), but I accept your decision and will not discuss further unless invited to do so. Bah, the wording of this choice is so convoluted in the GR that it's impossible to summarize it in a few words in the ballot, so I'm fine with what Neil came up with. For example, I would have liked to see Thank the DAM, invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concensus, leading to a new proposal.. The fact that the proposal explicitely thanks the DAM was a reason for which several DDs said that they wouldn't vote it above FD. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- 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.
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081101 09:26]: Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold. I'm sorry to say but that happens only if the resolution says so (If such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers, or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided that resolution itself says so).). ^^^ Cheers, Andi -- 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, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT= Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008 So when is this vote going to start? Not that I want one, but it seems to be taking alot of time to have an immediate vote. Kurt -- 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, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:35:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT= Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008 So when is this vote going to start? Not that I want one, but it seems to be taking alot of time to have an immediate vote. Lucky for you then that it's not, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neil -- * Tolimar votes for debconf7 to be somewhere where he speaks the language. Tolimar That would a veto for switzerland ;) Ganneff Tolimar: that also vetos germany signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
Le Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit : 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. Hi all Actually, there are persons who are constitutionnaly in their right to complain: the seconders of my original resolution, who I did not consult before changing it. Would one of them disagree with my acceptance of the amendment on which we worked together, the original proposisiton would be conserved, the amendment would be kept as an amendment, and the immediate vote would be rescheduled (A1.3). There are two obvious ways to avoid the immediate suspension vote: - The best one is that Joerg withdraws his decisions. - The second best one is to cool down until the end of the discussion period, and vote this GR as it is. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: 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. Sorry, but saying that Joerg, who is neither a proposer nor sponsor of this GR, is the only person who'd be in his rights to complain is pretty ridiculous. My interpretation of the constitution is that after 2K sponsorships are acquired, there must be an immediate vote. If this vote is delayed for some technical reasons, it definitely should *not* be cancelled later for any reason whatsoever, because in the perfect world it would have happened at once. Cheers. -- Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- 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, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed, as per 4.2.2 of the constitution. For reference, this will now not take place, as the original GR has been amended to not include the decision reversal text. Neil -- i get an error... i forget what it is ... but definitely an error, well, maybe a warning... or an informational message... but definitely an output Verbatim quote from #debian, irc.freenode.net, Sat Jan 12 00:31:16 GMT 2008 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:42:30AM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed, as per 4.2.2 of the constitution. 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. I'm sure there were very good reasons [1] to not rush things in this particular case. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00203.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00226.html Cheers. -- Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- 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 Fri, Oct 31 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote: 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. I'm sure there were very good reasons [1] to not rush things in this particular case. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00203.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00226.html Mind you, I am not runing this vote anyway. So the fact i consider it useless, no-op, anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of non-packagers into Debian, has absolutely nothing to say about what the person running this vote thinks about it. manoj -- What do you have when you have six lawyers buried up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- 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.
Hi Jörg, On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it *WONT* do anything except creating needless work? You could give them an incentive to do so... regards, Holger pgp2IFvtz47cx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR? It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K people automatically put the DAM decision on hold, and the vote needs to override that automation. Thus the FD choice is the same as the decision stays on hold. This vote is 4.2.2.4: 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural vote. I had to read this a few times. But now my understanding is that the decision is on hold until the procedural vote, and that it will be followed by a GR. The procedural vote just says if the decision stands or is put on hold between the procedural vote and the GR. Correct. We've not had this occur before, so I'll try and make sure it's clear on the ballot. Expect an update later today :) Neil -- vorlon We need a fresher website - WordPress is the perfect solution, that way the website can get a new look every time a script kiddie comes up with a new design signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it *WONT* do anything except creating needless work? You could give them an incentive to do so... WTF do you think did I do with my mail? Would you please start to *read* before you reply? -- bye, Joerg From a NM after doing the license stuff: I am glad that I am not a lawyer! What a miserable way to earn a living. -- 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 Tuesday 28 October 2008 12:14, Joerg Jaspert wrote: You could give them an incentive to do so... WTF do you think did I do with my mail? Would you please start to *read* before you reply? Oh, thanks, I read before I replied... maybe you can make yourself understood better and *write* properly, instead of demanding people *guess* what you really mean. I just read [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the 2nd time and there is no indication that you plan to do diffently than outlined in that mail to d-d-a... and I still don't think thats appropriate and you still seemto think it is, so I think you don't give any incentive to drop this GR. And while I like the tone in Peters Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept GR proposal much better, I have to agree with what Lucas said in [EMAIL PROTECTED]. regards, Holger pgpL7k40c8U6O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote: =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT= Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008 Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says: If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural vote. 5 days sounds like a pretty strange definition of immediate ;) Also, our constitution says: If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted. Wouldn't that be easier? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- 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, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- 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, Oct 27 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says: Because it takes time to set up a vote, and it requires attention from the vote taker at the beginning and end of the vote, and the times reflect the prep time required (one of the people who could ruin this vote is going away for a busness trip this week, and the other one is new at this task). If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural vote. 5 days sounds like a pretty strange definition of immediate ;) The work on the votig has started immediately , as far as I can see. Vote setups normally take a couple of days, at the best of times -- and sometimes longer. Are you sure you know which color the bike shed should be painted? manoj -- Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now -- always. Albert Schweitzer Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- 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.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- 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. -- bye, Joerg That's just f***ing great, now the bar for being a cool guy in free software just got raised. It used to be you just had to write a million lines of useful code. Now you've got to get a subpoena from SCO to be cool. -- 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, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please send comments to myself 24h before voting opens. You have a total of 3 times proceedural instead of procedural in this mail. Kurt -- 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, 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? Neil -- Drinking coca cola is the most unhealthy thing you can do; it is healthier to drink tap water than coca cola : ) -- Sergio Cu�llar Vald�s signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
Manoj Srivastava wrote: (...) (one of the people who could ruin this vote is going away for a busness --- trip this week, and the other one is new at this task). (...) manoj You meant run, huh ? -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.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, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:11:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote: =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT= Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008 Also, our constitution says: If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted. Wouldn't that be easier? Probably. Ask the original delegate :) Neil -- liw the hacklab room is the one with a pirate flag, and a venezuelan flag, and a third flag liw the other hacklab room is the other hacklab room signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I think this vote is rubbish' or similar. I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what outcomes mean if you like. Neil [0] It's delayed at the moment. This is a vote to override that essentially. -- * Maulkin cries Maulkin NB: rm -rf /chroots/sarge while /home is mounted at /chroots/sarge/home is NOT-A-GOOD-THING(tm) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please send comments to myself 24h before voting opens. You have a total of 3 times proceedural instead of procedural in this mail. Updated in the actual ballot. Thanks, Neil -- * stockholm bangs head against budget h01ger outsch stockholm h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself gwolf stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
also sprach Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]: [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided I don't understand the difference between those two. -- .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems of course the music is a great difficulty. you see, if one plays good music, people don't listen, and if one plays bad music people don't talk. -- oscar wilde digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I think this vote is rubbish' or similar. I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what outcomes mean if you like. Neil [0] It's delayed at the moment. This is a vote to override that essentially. So what is the difference between 2 and 3? In case of 2 we already agree to have an other GR? Kurt -- 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.
Hi Neil Thanks for the prompt clarification. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I think this vote is rubbish' or similar. Then basically Choice 2 and 3 are the same. I think you could also express 'I abstain' by not ranking any choices at all. But as long as everybody agrees on what happens if either of the options wins, this is only a minor problem. I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what outcomes mean if you like. I would like an explanaiton on the ballot to avoid confusion. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- 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, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]: [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided I don't understand the difference between those two. At http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/10/msg5.html, Joerg Jaspert posted a mail. There's currently a GR to reverse the decision in that mail[0]. As we've received = 10 seconds to the GR, and the GR mentions the 'revocation-until-vote' clause of 4.2.2, the decision is suspended. A vote needs to be called to determine if this suspension stands until the GR results come in. Voting for Choice 1 means that Joerg may continue doing whatever decisions he may or may not have made until the result of the GR. Voting for Choice 2 means that he can't pursue it until the GR results are in (at a minimum). Hope this explains, Neil [0] Whether it contains any decisions or not is left as an exercise to the reader, I'm not going to make that judgement call. [1] I am *slightly* annoyed that clause 4.2.2 is being invoked at this time, it means a lot more work running votes and I'm not convinced there's anything to gain, but *shrug*. -- h01ger ETOOMUCHSPANISHTOOFAST signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:20:30PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Hi Neil Thanks for the prompt clarification. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I think this vote is rubbish' or similar. Then basically Choice 2 and 3 are the same. I think you could also express 'I abstain' by not ranking any choices at all. But as long as everybody agrees on what happens if either of the options wins, this is only a minor problem. I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what outcomes mean if you like. I would like an explanaiton on the ballot to avoid confusion. It seems to me that what has been proposed and sponsored is option 2, and the constitutions seems to say that a GR should follow in that case. I see no reason to have option 1 on the ballot. I assume if option 2 passes that a discussion period of 2 weeks will follow this procedural vote? I also assume that that GR already has 1 option on it, what Joerg's mail announced. I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR? Kurt -- 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.
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR? It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K people automatically put the DAM decision on hold, and the vote needs to override that automation. Thus the FD choice is the same as the decision stays on hold. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- 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 Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR? It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K people automatically put the DAM decision on hold, and the vote needs to override that automation. Thus the FD choice is the same as the decision stays on hold. This vote is 4.2.2.4: 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural vote. I had to read this a few times. But now my understanding is that the decision is on hold until the procedural vote, and that it will be followed by a GR. The procedural vote just says if the decision stands or is put on hold between the procedural vote and the GR. Kurt -- 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.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- 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? None at all, drop the immediate vote. As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this will be implemented within the next few weeks. So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it *WONT* do anything except creating needless work? It's more than enough to have the normal vote procedure run. Of course the secretary has to accept this, as its not written down in constitution, but as this immediate vote is a NOOP, no matter what the outcome is, it would only save them work to accept it. -- bye, Joerg 00:00:11 LupusE goebelmeier: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html - warum steht hier 'mplayer'? ist das eine whishlist? pgpSY0Gz6a8v7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:21:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this will be implemented within the next few weeks. Joerg, in your answer to Aurélien, you wrote that your announcment was a new policy to get implemented. But some of this policy does not need technical work to take effect. Same that a DD who lost his GPG key is still a DD, some DME could be appointed despite not having all the technical possibilities mentionned in the new policy. If by none of this is implemented yet you mean that you do not yet intend to apply the new policy you decided, I think that we can indeed drop this vote to save some work. Nevertheless, it is not only the implementation that is to be suspended by this GR, but the new policy itself. For the moment you are standing alone with it: other delegates, the Project leader, or the Project secretary, whom you all mentionned having consulted, none of them have supported the new policy formally. On the other hand, there are many developers who either disagree with the method or the contents or both, and even some that think that you do not have the appropriate delegation for taking it. We all have the same goal, making Debian more open, but disagree ont the means. Let's discuss instead of just checking who has the right to impose his opinion on the others. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far. Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* issue a call for votes unless they are the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote has suggested. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he could have done so himself. Since he hasn't, claiming that Manoj has resisted bringing the original proposal to a vote is incorrect. and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. There's nothing wrong with calling for a vote at any point after the minimum discussion period has elapsed. If you haven't submitted appropriate amendments by that point in time, then it's no one else's fault but your own. [If they haven't been seconded by enough people, then they just weren't popular enough.] These proposals have been around for weeks, they've been discussed for weeks. Lets get on with it. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:01:10AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far. Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* issue a call for votes unless they are the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote has suggested. Maybe, but Manoj wearing a double hat on this, is troublesome. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he could have done so himself. Since he hasn't, claiming that Manoj has resisted bringing the original proposal to a vote is incorrect. I did do a call for vote when i finally noticed that it was our place to do it, i was flamed on irc and mailing lists to do so though. and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. There's nothing wrong with calling for a vote at any point after the minimum discussion period has elapsed. If you haven't submitted appropriate amendments by that point in time, then it's no one else's fault but your own. [If they haven't been seconded by enough people, then they just weren't popular enough.] Manoj was aware of the proposal being worked on, he even participated in its reviewing. These proposals have been around for weeks, they've been discussed for weeks. Lets get on with it. Please see the final RFC for the ballot proposed by me and frederik. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse public? Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse even sent? How about checking the constitution before posting noise? (We can't recall the secretary, but maybe can reverse the DPL decision part of their appointment, AFAICT.) During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. One can suspect it, same as others suspect some other delegates of funny timings, but I think it needs actually listing times and say what should have been done to convince anyone of malpractice. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started. Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. It pains me to see you resorting to such base tricks. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. A little plea for the next GR discussion season: when people discuss a GR, please keep in mind that the discussion will become material that people would like to read before deciding what to vote. http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 says: Please note that this does not include preludes, prologues, any preambles to the resolution, post-ambles to the resolution, abstracts, fore-words, after-words, rationales, supporting documents, opinion polls, arguments for and against, and any of the other important material you will find on the mailing list archives. Please read the debian-vote mailing list archives for details. I do not have time nor motivation to go through the huge debian-vote mailing list archives of the last month. It would be useful if the main proponents of either result would work together (offline? on the wiki?) on a single short text that would summarise both positions in a way that they both think is fair. A few suggestions for trying to have a better list archive next time can found in http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ , and more specifically in http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ch02.html Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft ballot DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:50:41AM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. A little plea for the next GR discussion season: when people discuss a GR, please keep in mind that the discussion will become material that people would like to read before deciding what to vote. http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 says: Please note that this does not include preludes, prologues, any preambles to the resolution, post-ambles to the resolution, abstracts, fore-words, after-words, rationales, supporting documents, opinion polls, arguments for and against, and any of the other important material you will find on the mailing list archives. Please read the debian-vote mailing list archives for details. I do not have time nor motivation to go through the huge debian-vote mailing list archives of the last month. It would be useful if the main proponents of either result would work together (offline? on the wiki?) on a single short text that would summarise both positions in a way that they both think is fair. A few suggestions for trying to have a better list archive next time can found in http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ , and more specifically in http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ch02.html There will be a kernel team meeting this evening, where we will discuss these licencing issues, and try to come with a common text which the kernel team, the d-i team and the RM team can second. So, stay tuned for a new proposal tomorrow, which will obsolet all or most others. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments need to be in fast, though. Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone who can't figure out what is being voted upon probably should not be voting. Especially since there was a link to the vote page. Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals? It was pretty clear, but Amend the Constitution (assets handling) would have been better. Just in case someone mixed this up with some other constitutional amendment. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Apparently, the proposer and the secretary both felt that the form on the ballot was OK -- or do you have a better idea what the proposer of the GR wanted? [...] If only the proposer and secretary need to be happy with the ballot, post the draft to them only and sod the voters. I never said comments were not welcome. [...] It seemed pretty clear from the response. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments need to be in fast, though. Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, MJ Ray wrote: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments need to be in fast, though. Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. It's a not so subtle ploy by the Secretary to force people to actually read the amendment instead of voting on a soundbite... Don Armstrong -- Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone who can't figure out what is being voted upon probably should not be voting. Especially since there was a link to the vote page. Previously, the proposal has been named on the ballot, such as: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/03/msg3.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/06/msg4.html and even when there's only one option: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/06/msg4.html Also, if there is no material from the proposal in the ballot, how do the wordings consequently decide the form of it? (constitution A.2.3) Finally, if comments are unwelcome, why bother posting a draft ballot with a message that suggests it's OK to comment? Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:28:15 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Previously, the proposal has been named on the ballot, such as: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/03/msg3.html Very short proposal, so full text was on the ballot as well. Also, more than a up/down vote. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/06/msg4.html The full text does not seem to be present on this one -- but there were multiple options, so needed names to disambiguate. and even when there's only one option: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/06/msg4.html Also, if there is no material from the proposal in the ballot, how do the wordings consequently decide the form of it? (constitution A.2.3) However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's Apparently, the proposer and the secretary both felt that the form on the ballot was OK -- or do you have a better idea what the proposer of the GR wanted? Finally, if comments are unwelcome, why bother posting a draft ballot with a message that suggests it's OK to comment? I never said comments were not welcome. I also never said I'd blindly agree to whatever people commented. manoj -- You know, we've won awards for this crap. David Letterman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments need to be in fast, though. Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone who can't figure out what is being voted upon probably should not be voting. Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals? manoj -- Last guys don't finish nice. Stanley Kelley, on the cult of victory at all costs Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the assets constitutional GR
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments need to be in fast, though. Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? Amend the constitution is not descriptive enough. Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone who can't figure out what is being voted upon probably should not be voting. Especially since there was a link to the vote page. Does anyone themselves have had problems figuring out what this was all about, or is it merely hypotheticals? -- Last guys don't finish nice. Stanley Kelley, on the cult of victory at all costs Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases I would personally like to see this without the in all cases as an author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or interpretation of the license that could make the work DFSG-free. This also seems to be what the proposal is about. [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections present Is this correct (I have trouble parsing this)? Maybe GFDL licend works withour unmidifiable sections are free.? - -- - -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEAEWAVYan35+NCKcRApWvAJ9+EWUJ24w1gYdZIe1ybyGiiCc1lQCeMazh b9Jf7VL28j40J/Bg3Lk1XNY= =zRPt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote
Manoj Srivastava wrote: [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections present All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least: * [4D, 4E] Copyright statements * [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled History * [4F] The permission notice, which must be in the form shown in the Addendum below * [4H] A copy of the GFDL * [4J] Random URLs So, unfortunately, that phrasing won't work. (Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of these are [or are not] DFSG-freeness issues, just that they're unmodifiable sections) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote
On 25 Feb 2006, Arthur de Jong outgrape: [ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases I would personally like to see this without the in all cases as an author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or interpretation of the license that could make the work DFSG-free. This also seems to be what the proposal is about. Since the wording is from the proposer of the GR, I would tend to go along with him knowing what the proposal is all about. Also, the full text of the proposal is always authoritative; the ballot is simply there to identify the proposal well enough that the voters can link it [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections present Is this correct (I have trouble parsing this)? Maybe GFDL licend works withour unmidifiable sections are free.? Well, it is correct, but I see no reason not to switch the sentence around, if it is clearer. Dato? On 25 Feb 2006, Anthony DeRobertis uttered the following: Manoj Srivastava wrote: [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections present All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least: [SNIP pedantic nitpicks] So, unfortunately, that phrasing won't work. (Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of these are [or are not] DFSG-freeness issues, just that they're unmodifiable sections) The single line on the ballot is not meant to be a full and complete description of the proposal. It is only meant to identify the proposal well enough that the voter can distinguish it from the other choices. In this case, the wording has been vetted by the proposer of the amendment, so I am sure that it is not deceptively incorrect. manoj -- Pardon this fortune. Database under reconstruction. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote
Hi, Well, obviously this is not about procedures to publish posts from the debian-private mailing list . == The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to address the Debian projects position on the GNU Free Documentation License. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated == manoj -- The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today. Lewis Carroll Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
