On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:33:28AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> ===
> THE DEBIAN PROJECT:
> 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
> our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
> 2. encourages li
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> just let me rephrase it then.
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution
You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin,
nor Andi nor I, nor any of the current release assistants
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Filibustering general resolutions"):
> I am not sure this is the model we should be following )I know
> we are currently not following it at all). Your reading of the
> wording means that, strictly speaking, there is only a two week (or
> one week, if the D
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:39:34 +1200, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I suppose we could have a lengthy email exchange, and assume that the
>> sponsors are still paying attention to every mail in the deluge that
>> is -vote;
> On which subject, does anyone else
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:11:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> > constitutes the actual general resolution?
I second the following GR.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNE
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:11:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> > constitutes the actual general resolution?
>
> This:
>
> 1. We affirm that our Pr
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
> constitutes the actual general resolution?
This:
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could the proposers or sponsors of the amendment
> ,
> | From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Subject: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
> | To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
> | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PRO
Hi,
Could the proposers or sponsors of the amendment
,
| From: Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
| To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
| Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`
come to an agreement about what exactly in that email
cons
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:33:28AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> ===
> THE DEBIAN PROJECT:
> 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
> our users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
> 2. encourages lic
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:25:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [Dropping -release from cc anyway; there's no possible reason this needs to
> be cross-posted to 4 lists]
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:12:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58:31AM -0500, Bill Allombert
Hi,
may I propose a simpler procedure.
> 1. The electronic mailing list designated is
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the authoritative source of
>the full text of all resolutions, as well as the supporting
>arguments and other material.
> 2. Every proposal and sponsoring email must be sig
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
>
> The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named "Duck
> Tank"
I do not like how this "not objecting" might be interpreted as
support. I want Debian to neither object nor not object. I
While the Constitution, as I read it, gives the developers the power to
recall the DPL even without reason if they wish, my very humble opinion
is that it should be done *only* when the DPL is guilty of something
*very* bad. Please explain why that would be the case.
If you feel that the DPL shoul
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:40:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:21:12 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This issue remains, and it is still not solved. This has got the
> > approval of Steve Langasek (who said that his proposal and this
> > where
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> b7af2494-93e2-490e-9312-85647b0928b3
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: Amend the constitution [needs 3:1]
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
ENOSIG
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:39:03 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal proposal,
>> allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short (say,
>> impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks).
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:21:12 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue remains, and it is still not solved. This has got the
> approval of Steve Langasek (who said that his proposal and this
> where orthogonal and a separate GR), of our DPL, who said he would
> postpone his ow
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj.
There's some difference between "not liking aj" and "thinking aj is
hurting the project to the point he should be recalled".
--
.''`. Josselin Moue
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:02:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> === START OF GR PROPOSAL =
> Given that the current set of issues held up to
> vote, as well as the dispute over them and over
> whether the secretary can excercice common sense
> and judgement when casting the bal
20 matches
Mail list logo
