* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
> Thomas Weber writes:
> > Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> >> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
> >> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
> >> pro
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq
> >4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
> >bit out; for this rea
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
> proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the
> Secretary, as there's nothing in "Standard Resolution Procedures" which
> allows this t
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
> > Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
> > vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
> > just missed it.)
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg0
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
>> > Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
>> > vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
>> > j
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adeodato Simó writes:
>
> > What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
> > appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
> > between them?
>
> I believe this only applies in the cont
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
>> Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the
>> *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one.
>> (I may have just missed it.)
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg
Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
>> proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of
>> the Secretary, as there's nothing in "Standard Resolution Procedu
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 20:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring
> the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how
> the DFSG is applied. You are accusing them of breaking an oath or
> promise, and it's hardly
Russ Allbery wrote:
> If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
> process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
> have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can
> tell, there isn't, apart from application to voting specif
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
> >> proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 23:38, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of
>> ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their
>> interpretation of how the DFSG is applied.
>
> I think you are talking about me here. I haven't actually seen any
Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the
>> secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an
>> amendment so far as I can tell.
> It says "according to the require
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
>you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
>requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
>of the SC and
- "Steve McIntyre" wrote:
> >Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
> >should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are
> >explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement
> >about their interpretation.
>
> And t
Ean Schuessler writes:
> - "Steve McIntyre" wrote:
>
>>> Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
>>> should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents
>>> are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project
>>> statement about t
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ean Schuessler writes:
>> - "Steve McIntyre" wrote:
>>
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents
are explicitly supers
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
> > least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
> you. I don't think there's any jus
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
>> with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
>> for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
> you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
> requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
> of the SC and the DFSG to
Andreas Barth writes:
> * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
>> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
>> with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
>> for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the
>> mea
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
> > * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
>
> >> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
> >> with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
> >> for requiring
22 matches
Mail list logo
