On 10May, 2013, at 23.40 , Michael Ossipoff email9648...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to add that I can't find any rule for choosing the numerical value of
R.
The quorum R is usually 3 * 1/2 * sqrt( number of Debian Developers ). This is
currently a bit over 47. Majority is usually a simple
On 13Mar, 2012, at 17:18 , Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:14:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Please don't send me personal copies of messages that are also going to
the mailing list, as I haven't asked for that.
Mail-Followup-To can help you with that, fwiw.
From the
On 12.3.2012, at 10.00, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Of course, it's unfortunate that the full details are not available.
There's been work on making Debian's monetary details more transparent,
but AFAIK there hasn't been anything made public on that yet. I suppose
this is something that will
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
So, I apologize, but I'm not going to disclose my leader vote in public.
I think the better phrasing for the original question would be:
List reasons why the other candidates would make a good DPL.
This question does not ask you to divulge your
Kalle Kivimaa kalle.kivi...@iki.fi writes:
I don't think it is too much of a burden for a Debian volunteer to send
out quarterly or even monthly emails and then collate the answers. But
it might be a burden to the trustee organizations. But the only way to
find out is to ask, of course
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar ani...@debian.org writes:
At [0] AJ wrote that Martin Michlmayr spoke to Linux Australia about it
holding money/donations for Debian. So, potentially, LA may/will have
Debian money.
Thanks, this was news to me - and shows that I should have posted the
list already in
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
or not. Note that achieving that is not necessarily easy: it probably
involves more work on the shoulders of various treasurers and we should
be ready to help out with that, if it is a blocker.
It isn't that difficult, the only thing that needs to
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
As I wrote before, one thing is a desiderata, one thing is what you can
get given the available work forces. Given that you've just stepped
back from the position (which, honestly, I forgot we had), the first
obvious step is now finding a new
Luigi Gangitano lu...@debian.org writes:
You're right. It was my fault not to check the correctness of my
ballot, but since I've always used this combination of MUA to send my
votes I have been easily distracted by the warning on unsafe directory
permissions.
Devotee is actually a nice way to
Would it be possible to add a pointer to the frequently encountered
problems to the devotee error reply? This would most likely reduce the
burden on the secretary during the voting period and allow people to
solve the problems at their end faster.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution:
A.5. Expiry
If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
that the issue is being withdrawn. If
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
Ian Jackson i...@davenant.greenend.org.uk 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
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho antti-juh...@kaijanaho.fi writes:
Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary cannot
be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
course amend the Constitution at the same time to
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
On Friday 12 December 2008 12:57, Neil McGovern wrote:
..Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices...
Are unrated choices considered equally or ranked below? Or what part of the
logic do
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
to bypass the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
Well, as per constitution 2.1.1 a GR cannot force any project member
or delegate to do something, so if the GR means what
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
the same). Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
How about dropping the GR and continuing with the current process,
where anybody can file a RC bug
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers
Is this GR trying to force the dak developers to implement a way for
this to be done without any intervention from the ftpmasters, or is
this just shorthand for any developer may make a
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or is Manoj is still the secretary and did he delegate something to you?
What got delegated exactly in that case?
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that
we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR?
It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
---
The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, maybe you want. This would make it impossible to change the
membership procedures without an GR.
I don't think so. I think that would require (temporarily) amending
the constitution, as it would (temporarily) remove the authority
defined there.
--
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting
procedure as blatantly obvious.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
is still under-defined. This is a crappy idea. Imagine a Sven Luther
Under-defined? It lists two criteria for forceful removal: request
from the DAM and request from
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices this and does an immediate upload
which
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
notices. I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when some random developer does an NMU on his
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with sponsoring, I don't really see it as a
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you just read the long email I just sent a few hours ago? You
replied to it, so I assume you have noticed it, but somehow I get the
impression that you didn't actually have a look at the content.
I guess I misunderstood this comment:
(2)
Nacho Barrientos Arias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The above is the ideal situation, but if it is not possible then the
DM starts making sense and I will support it.
You do realize that the DM proposal solves other problems than just
the it takes forever for a qualified NM to get upload rights,
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still lack the reason why someone would not be DD for political
reasons _and_ wanting to help improving Debian at the same time.
For an example and reasoning, please see the subthread starting with
I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
Debian Maintainers Proposal
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves to
1) A new keyring will be
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can anyone second that in its current state? It's rather buggy.
I like the idea, but please withdraw your seconds until the worst bugs
are fixed. If that passes as-is, the project will look sillier.
I don't agree that the language mistakes in the proposal
Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 09:01:51PM +0200, Sven Luther:
First, my mail won't reach the list, since i am currently being unfairly
censored and banned from posting on debian lists, so if you judge this
mail worthwhile, you can forward it.
Uh?
Sven has
[I am on the list and I thought my m-f-t is set correctly too, no need
to cc me on replies]
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you be a bit more verbose as to why you could not just refrain
from using some rights that a DD has?
I was close to resigning because I thought the Debian
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I agree with you. I can see some use in the DM proposal for
people on the way in to Debian, but not for those on the way out. I'd
much rather see a clean break for those people leaving - if people
have decided they no longer want to be DD then
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then we maybe just disagree here: I think that someone who opposes to
Debian-the-community so much that they would want to explicitly disassociate
themselves from the entire project, is not someone I would want to grant
upload rights.
I personally
Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
like that culture. As a matter of fact, I'd be offended if someone would
conclude that I underwrite e.g. flamewars because I'm a DD.
Let me take a not-entirely hypothetical example. Let's suppose that
the DAM's have decided to expel a developer who is
Joey Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. By continueing to maintain your packages but losing voting rights
you would still be part of the community but without the slightest chance
to change anything. I guess, I didn't get your rationale. Err... Care
to help me?
I do admit that my way
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. However, Sven Luther should be allowed onto lists where Q posters
request it, where Q is half of the square root of the number of
posters last month.
Does this place an undue burden on the listmasters?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The expulsion procedure calls for such statements to be sent to both the
DAMs and to -private. So it's reasonable to discount mails from developers
who didn't follow directions, isn't it?
Yes. OTOH the procedure also calls for such statements to
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does your no compensation clarification mean that it is not as
unacceptable to mock people for doing things they like if they do get
compensated?
Well, if *I* get compensated enough, I'm willing to be mocked :) So
yes, I find it somewhat more
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm getting pissed off by this attitude of many free software
developers, who think that no one has the right to criticise their work,
because they are volunteers.
Criticise, yes. Mock, no.
I'll define the terms, just to be clear:
Criticise: To
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I understand your opinion, Greg Folkert's way of criticising people
is acceptable, while Sam's is not. Is that correct?
I don't have a ready-made opinion on either Greg or Sam, I haven't
really read that many opinions by either. I took a quick look
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you are in a visible position in a group, you are also in the
position to be mocked, and it's something people should get used to.
This attitude is the very single one that I absolutely hate in
volunteer organizations. Why should you get mocked
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finally, I'm curious - where do you stand on these issues?
Well, I guess I should send this as a private email to Steve, but
considering that most of the candidates have answered these already,
here are my personal opinions :)
What is the role of the
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. In your other mail you wrote
I think you find that *I* wrote what you quoted after this.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I absolutely don't like the implications of that assertion.
Well, if an entity A feels that they would benefit from paying a DD
for his Debian work, they have two choices:
1. They can do it publicly, or
2. They can just work the details out with the
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am *sick* of that assimilation of people against dunc-tank being those
who feel DDs can't be paid. Just stop the FUD.
Well, a brief look at the archives produced these exhibits:
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00100.html
[2]
Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Forgot to ask this question: In your opinion, what is a good length of
total term for a DPL?
I have always thought that a one-year term might be too short, since it
does not allow for too
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you give more specific examples of what could be the core
infrastructure support ?
Feel free to include/exclude any infrastructure you like, but just to
give an example, how about our buildd network administration (and no,
I'm not saying that our
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So your question is What about paying people to have first-class support
on some of our core infrastructure, is that correct ?
Exactly, thanks for a better wording.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
*
(I'm not subscribed to debian-www, so if you trim this to exclude
-vote, please cc me)
At http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 I noticed that Raphaél's
name is written with the UTF-8 é, and the page itself defines the
charset to be ISO 8859-1. Is this an artefact of the WWW pages or
a simple
Gustavo Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will add your questions and my answers into my campaign page, ok?
Yes, all candidates (and others, too) may consider my post as a whole
and as individual questions as being licensed under BSD license,
without any attribution clauses, or alternatively as
Now that we are well into the campaigning period, I'd like to ask each
candidate a couple of questions. Feel free to say that this is
answered in my platform, if that is the case.
What is the role of the DPL? Is he a strong leader, who uses his
position to Get Things Done His Way, a public
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which is interesting, considering that in such a situation we might
not even be able to run a vote.
To block a vote you need both the Project Secretary and the chairman
of the ctte to act together. Even then the body of the ctte could
simply elect a new
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant.
Well, in an ideal world everybody trusts everybody, but unfortunately
the world we live in is not ideal. And I'm not sure what's so
newsworthy in the fact that one developer doesn't trust
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May I suggest you start using a MUA with threading support? It should
provide access to the original source easily.
If you had checked the mail headers you would have noticed that I do
use such a MUA. What I don't do is store the Debian mailing list
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero
effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted,
Quoting partial sentences without disclosing the original source is
what usually only the yellow press does. I don't
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned
objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to
drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough
consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen.
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.
OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm seconding the following amendment made by Frans Pop
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
START OF AMENDMENT ==
Considering that:
(1) The current discussion about what to do with sourceless firmware
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In order to not distract our developpers from
their technical work and the timely release of
etch, the GR voting procedure, both currently
ongoing and future, will be frozen until the
release of etch, hoping that tempers will have
calmed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm seconding the following proposal made by Loïc Minier:
- -
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Duck Tank, lead
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). This means not only that
the interval is large, but a number of developers
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I'm concerned that the model we propose moving to may be much
more dubious from a legal standpoint. Basically I'm not sure, and
without a legal review I'm sure I can't support it.
Could you state what concerns you have? I don't think there can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm still seconding Loïc Minier's (typo-corrected) proposal:
- --
The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL.
The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunc-Tank,
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the latest mail from Anthony Towns (Firmware Social Contract:
GR proposal), it looks like I was correct. He just try to stop this
GR by proposing his own one.
The DPL has the same right as the other developers to propose GR's
that he feels are
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, a project like Debian is never ready, and never perfect.
Everybody knows that we are not meeting the freedom goals in the SC to
100% (as well as other goals)[1]. But I do not see this as a failure,
rather as a challenge. So why not try to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[-project dropped]
I second the proposal below.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Yet another draft. There are major changes in this version, so
I think we'll need to have people who seconded re-second the version
that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
But actually getting the information isn't so easy -- SPI aren't going
Yes, this is the hard part, as it requires the goodwill of the various
treasureres of the existing (SPI) and new organizations.
So -- if you're still interested, where to from
[-project readers, we've been discussing how to audit various Debian
assets around the world on -vote]
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I suspect getting Europe done first, then SPI in October, then getting
around to all the other groups (Linux Australia, Debian Japan, various
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Personally, I think that's the minimum we ought to expect, but IME it's
also a hell of a lot more work than it should be, and it'll require a
chunk of effort from someone to actually make it happen.
This depends on two factors, namely how many
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Again, if someone wants to volunteer to help get this right, please
stick your hand up.
I haven't been following this thread too well lately, but what are
your thoughts on this? I'm willing to volunteer, as I do have some
experience in
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That's not really legitimate STV since when a vote ranks two candidates
equally I count it towards both totals, which is why 231+237 = 468 which
is more than the total number of votes (421), but it's the best we can
do, I think.
Nah, here are the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In the mail to the DPL I mentioned above, James outlined three fairly
significant technical changes that could be implemented to make the
job easier, and could be done by anyone, without requiring any special
priveleges;
What would these three
[Moving this to -devel, please reply only there, this is not really
voting related stuff. We are talking about things to improve keyring
maintenance, for those not reading -vote.]
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
So first one was the spam problem, keyring-maint is a well-known
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
adds a new foundation document.
As you (and some others) are only arguing about the 3:1 supermajority
requirement,
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
change to the constitution, or it does not require a supermajority.
The clause being changed by choice number 3 is clause
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian doesn't have courts. The closest we've got is debian-legal,
The closest thing to courts we have are DPL, TC, DAM, FTP masters and
the Project Secretary. They have a final decision making power that
effectively resolves any disputes among the
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
procedure, remove you from your post is a hallmark of democracy. In the
case of the Project secretary, the procedure is indirect (by electing a
project leader who will not reappoint you), but that's not a problem,
Actually, it is a direct procedure. The
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
original_source+patch. If you have two works covered by such
license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source
of the combined work (unless the combined work is merely
aggregation of independent derivatives of both works).
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As am I. But we still have to accept it as a priori DFSG free unless we
hold a 3:1 GR to change it, and we have to consider it in our thinking
about other licenses.
As I wasn't around when the DFSG was drafted, it would be nice to hear
from those who
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From DFSG:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the
program at build time.
What is the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or
copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that you
don't have any right to edit redistribute except that which is granted
by the license.
Sorry, you are wrong. The
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
project has not decided this yet. If the project secretary decides
that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
that our notion of free software differs from
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG. (BTW, the list in
the brackets is not empty.)
Actually, I think that the DFSG already lists the license text as the
only unmodifiable part in the binary:
The license must allow modifications and derived
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consider it a more
important part than the GNU Emacs Manual itself. How
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a
Actually, a group of developers, no matter how
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As formulated at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, the four
software freedoms can not be applied directly to works that are not
programs and in particular they can not be applied directly to
documentation. Run the program and study how the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process
of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
an invariant section.
Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has
been that we must accept the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
I propose the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Proposal below seconded.
It seems that my Gnus settings do not work correctly for most people
(including devotee), if I try to send out GPG'd ISO-8859-1 emails.
This should be verifiable by all.
Seconding
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some of these issues are certainly unfixed, and very, very few might
even be unpublished. It's unlikely that one of those has been sent to
Debian, though.
And if it has been sent to Debian and ignored, I'd say that our Social
Contract _mandates_ us to
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I read the constitution correctly, you cannot decide such a thing
by GR.
Could you give us your reasoning why this isn't Issuing, superseding
and withdrawing nontechnical policy documents and statements? In my
opinion mailing list usage rules are
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not the mailing list policy part, it's the mandated delegation by
the DPL. I suppose a GR can create a declassification team, but a GR
cannot force the DPL to create one by delegation.
Well, a GR cannot force anybody to do anything, due to 2.1.1
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to
-private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept
confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights.
The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
