Ian Jackson writes:
> C. Rewrite the foundation documents so that they are clearly
> comprehensible (rather than vague) and establish an independent
> legally-minded body to make these decisions.
>
> D. Establish (or empower) some kind of interpretation committee,
> which would have
I agree with much of the criticism of the outgoing Secretary's actions
in the Lenny GR vote. But I think we need to look to see how this
came to pass.
In my view the mistake came when the project voted to entrench the
Foundation Documents by requiring a 3:1 supermajority to change them.
This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay!
Details of the outcome and how various options were voted are available at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/
Michael Goetze wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
>
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
better for
MJ Ray wrote:
> to reduce GRs, having
> another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Ron wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
> > discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
> > Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
> > popular DDs be able to propose
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Can we stop this absurd discussion/reasoning?
I don't believe it is absurd. But reading some of the private replies I've
already got to my other mail, it seems my motivation for this discussion has
not been obvious.
To me, this d
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
I would like the readers of this list to tell me (PRIVATELY - there is no need
to clutter this list) whether they consider this characterisation of my
messages
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
> > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
>
> If the GR proposal does not
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
> a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
If the GR proposal does not say that it is a nonbinding position statement or
an overrid
10 matches
Mail list logo
