Dear Lucas,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> to shorten the discussion period.
I hope you consider the point raised
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
> the discussion period to one week?
I am fine with shortening it.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/de
> Here is the text:
>
> ---
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome =
> of
> the vote.
>
> Regarding the sub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
>
>
> The Debian project asks its
Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Does this GR imply that such a decision may not be made without a new
> GR to override this one?
I was originally worried about this too, and it's one reason out of many
why I strongly dislike using GRs to decide technical matters.
My understanding though, is that this GR wou
On 22 October 2014 20:14, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
>> > Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
>> > > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
>> > > uselessd | systemd (but does n
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> > Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
> > > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
> > > uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
> > > by h
Lucas Nussbaum (2014-10-22):
> On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
> > would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
> > to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in t
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2014-10-22):
> Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> > > I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between
> > > systemd and sysvinit - that's anything but "basically
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small
> legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the
> default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able
> to serve as input in future TC discussions on similar/rel
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1
week"):
> I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> to shorten the discussion period.
>
> I reached out to Ian i
Hi Lucas,
2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum :
> Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
> the discussion period to one week?
Fine for me.
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
> would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
> to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the
> middle of next week about th
On 21/10/14 at 20:09 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
> > =
> > A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj])
> > (if you are confused with “one” here, i
Hi,
On 20/10/14 at 14:47 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess writes:
>
> Joey> Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines
> Joey> of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it
> Joey> currently stands, from the package maintainers, to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
> part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
> cases of doubt." -- from appendix B in the constitution.
OK, I didn't remember that (
Charles Plessy (2014-10-22):
>
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
> Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
> the vote.
>
> Regarding the s
Ian,
Le mercredi, 22 octobre 2014, 13.34:27 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> > I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd
> > and sysvinit - that's anything but "basically fine"!
>
> It's only a war between sy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Charles Plessy writes ("[Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR,
please??? amendement."):
> I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.
I'm not entirely convinced this is quite regular.
You are the pr
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
> > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
> > uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
> > by his proposal.
Yes.
In practi
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
> Seconded. I say no to systemd dependency. I want to be able to choose
> myself what init system to use in my Debian setup.
>
This mail isn't signed, nor do I seem to be able to find you in
db.debian.org. Unfortunately, o
Hi Neil,
I realized that myself afterwards, please forgive my ignorance.
Indeed, I'm not a registered Debian developer, so my vote cannot be
accepted.
Sergey
On 22 October 2014 13:39, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:38:49PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
>> Second
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered.
> The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent.
>
> I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitutio
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>> Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
>> =
>> A2.1: packages MUST work with one alternative init system (in [iwj])
>> (if you are confused with “one” here, it’s basic
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our
> Contitution.
>
>
>
> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing
> General Resolutions, as the GR process may
25 matches
Mail list logo
