On 26/01/19 16:12, Sam Hartman wrote:
> reasonably, I think that he's reached a level of
The post wasn't intended to start a discussion about anybody specific,
it is about the procedure. Please don't shoot the messenger. This
tendency to make discussions personal, especially when somebody has a
While we're throwing around random wikipedia pages, I'd like to submit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
With respect, I don't think Daniel's comments are a constructive
addition to the discussion. Whether or not daniel was treated
reasonably, I think that he's reached a level of
On 07/01/2019 23:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> One of the things that emerged from the recent discussions around DAM
> actions is that we are missing a way to review or appeal DAM's
> decision. Currently the only way to do this is running a full-featured
> GR, with all the
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:48 AM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> I have the very highest regard for both Joerg's and Enrico's integrity. I
> hope that they would say likewise about me. We are trying hard to do the
> right thing and not the subvertible thing, so please have a little faith
> that we
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 02:34:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Karsten Merker:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >>
> 4. NM Committee review
> --
> The NMC has 7 days
Hello!
Karsten Merker:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
>>
4. NM Committee review
--
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the
matter in
private.
Hi!
Richard Hartmann:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> [...]
>> Anthony Towns:
> [...]
>
>>> Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to
>>> the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member
>>> committee will probably want to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:08:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action,
>
> I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment.
>
> > 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> >
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
[...]
> Anthony Towns:
[...]
> > Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to
> > the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member
> > committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM,
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I don't intend to use devotee for that. I don't think it can
> currently handle such votes, nor do I want to spend time
> implementing that.
I have used CIVS[1] for various projects and for work. It's not very
polished, but usually works well.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote
> > > goes, I
> > > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it.
> >
> > I beg to
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote goes,
> > I
> > don't think just deleting that one sentence is it.
>
> I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with
> using sqrt(people
On 15277 March 1977, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Thank you very much, Joerg (and DAM team) for coming up with this
proposal. I have just returned to work after a month off, and my brain
isn't yet 100% wired to be productive again (WAY off 100%, I'd say),
but this really looks like a good (although
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100]:
> Hello everyone,
>
> One of the things that emerged from the recent discussions around DAM
> actions is that we are missing a way to review or appeal DAM's decision.
> Currently the only way to do this is running a full-featured GR,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:28:34PM +0100, Luke Faraone wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 19:07, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Le 9 janvier 2019 16:49:30 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > >I would try to use software that can run a vote like that,
> > >where it's possible to provide proof that
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 19:07, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Le 9 janvier 2019 16:49:30 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> >I would try to use software that can run a vote like that,
> >where it's possible to provide proof that your vote was recorded
> >properly. I think there is such open source
Le 9 janvier 2019 16:49:30 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
>On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> Would this vote be secret? In some situation, I'd rather not vote
>than
>> having my vote disclosed. I'm very much OK for the secretary to see
>what
>> I voted for
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Would this vote be secret? In some situation, I'd rather not vote than
> having my vote disclosed. I'm very much OK for the secretary to see what
> I voted for though.
The voting would be secret. I think the only output should
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 1/7/19 11:27 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > 5. NM-Committee vote
> >
> > After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC,
> > NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret,
On 1/7/19 11:27 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 5. NM-Committee vote
>
> After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC,
> NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret, 3-day-long
> vote, with the following options:
>
> 1. Uphold the decision of
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions"):
> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > Therefore the clause "If more than half of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain
> > or do not vote, the decision is not overturned" would IMHO need to be
&g
Hello,
Anthony Towns:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
>> --
>> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
>> appeal the decision.
>
> Based on the process you describe, I'd
Thanks for this details analysis and for your suggestions for
improvements. I like especially the idea of changing the timeline and
to remove the update of the DAM statement (3. Appealer statement).
I also was wondering what "turning it into a warning" really means.
I think a warning should be
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> With this message we define a way to appeal a DAM action,
I'm treating this as if it's a first draft and open to comment.
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership
On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
4. NM Committee review
--
The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter
in
private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
I'm
On 15276 March 1977, Thomas Lange wrote:
Do you plan an official announcement of this new procedure?
It will end up on d-d-a in a few days, provided someone doesn't find a big
flaw in it.
JFTR: Thanks Enrico for pointing me how to see the list of members
that will vote. Keep in mind that
On 15276 March 1977, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
we waive the time limit defined in §1 for the cases
from the last 6 months.
Would it make sense to have them 1 week from publishing this
instead?
Thanks for that. Yeah, that offer is not valid forever, but as we normally say
30 days, lets make it 14
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> we waive the time limit defined in §1 for the cases
> from the last 6 months.
Would it make sense to have them 1 week from publishing this
instead?
Kurt
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 09:14:53 +0100, Joerg Jaspert
> said:
> On 15276 March 1977, Thomas Lange wrote:
>> I think you should forward this mail to nm-commit...@nm.debian.org.
> Noted, but I think it makes more sense to point them at this whenever
such an
> appeal
On 2019/01/08 13:38, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> If that's the case, are you talking about multiple appeals from people
>> who have had their membership revoked, or is it that I interpreted it
>> wrong and that anyone can appeal?
>
> I'm clarifying the corner case in which two people have had their
>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:21:20PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> If I read the original text correctly in item 1 above, it seems that
> only the person who's rights got revoked can appeal?
Yes, correct.
> If that's the case, are you talking about multiple appeals from people
> who have had
On 2019/01/08 12:43, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
>> --
>> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
>> appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating
>> why they disagree with the decision in a
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
> appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating
> why they disagree
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 1. Appealing DAM decisions
> --
> Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may
> appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating
> why they disagree with
34 matches
Mail list logo
