The three options of your proposal are worthwhile to have on the ballot.
Cheers
Luk
On 10/16/2014 11:07 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
> vote to some other place?
Do you really think anyone will feel that their contribution was not
relevant for the vote?
Anyway, is someone willing to propose an option that would postpone
On 03/17/2012 06:46 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 09:01:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>
>>> In some cases, of course, that isn't the case, and then things get
>>> somewhat more complex. A good example on that is the s
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 08:18:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> What I like in your proposal is that the projects will need a donor, as
> opposed
> to directly use Debian money. I think that showing the capacity of finding a
> donor is an important filter before enga
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
>> And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG
>> non-freeness, people that want to leave the project?
>
> For the record, I will not answer in this thread to
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit :
>> Charles Plessy
> H> > Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Charles Plessy
> According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and
> all
> its components
Bill Allombert wrote:
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
>
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
> with it remotely through a computer
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>> Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
>> document is the previous option.
>
> What would
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
>>> distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>> This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess yo
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
>> temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
>> practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
>> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
>
> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
>> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
>> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
>
> I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.
[...]
So I don't really see wh
Matthew Johnson wrote:
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
superma
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constit
Hi
There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any
vote to clarify:
Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only ov
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle,
Hi all,
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm2
Hi
As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
firmware. Users and press are complaining that their servers don't have
network anymore after an upgrade or that their notebooks cannot be
installed vi
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Dear Steve and Luk,
Hi Lucas
> So, you are running in tandem. How do you plan to organize the sharing
> of the DPL workload?
I think we'll try to spread the workload depending on the circumstances
of the moment.
> Will Steve be The DPL, with Luk only helping on some matt
MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> MJ Ray writes:
>>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>> effects. I encourage all DD
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> su, 2009-03-22 kello 17:01 +0100, Luk Claes kirjoitti:
>> I think we first have to think about what a member, if we need different
>> types of access/members and what they would be before thinking about the
>> process(es) to become a member. I do th
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti:
>> P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
>> much. Oh well... :-)
>
> Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli,
>
> What's your opinion on membership procedures?
>
> Last y
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:24:29PM +, Joseph Nahmias wrote:
>> 2 - How should funds above that level be allocated?
> Other potential usages of Debian moneys are bounties, to which I'm not
> opposed in principle. However, they should obey to very specific
> rule
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18 2009, Joseph Nahmias wrote:
>
>
>> 1 - What is an appropriate reserve level for the project?
>>
>> 2 - How should funds above that level be allocated?
>
> 3 - Should these decisions be made by the DPL acting alone, or
> should that
Joseph Nahmias wrote:
> Hello Steve, Luk, and Zack!
Hi Joseph
> Having just particpated in the latest SPI board meeting, I've learned
> that The Debian Project currently has over 125k USD in reserve. This
> amount (even setting aside the recent 30k debconf9 sponsorship by HP)
> seems to be at a
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:39:38PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> "Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
>>> several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
>>> default".
>
>> What I would do if the times will come, is to
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Steve, Luk and Stefano,
Hi Charles
> thank you very much for the time and efforts you are proposing to dedicate to
> the Project !
>
> Our Consitution suggests a stronger leadership of the DPL the discussions:
>
> 9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
>
> Th
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
>> cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
>
> Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
Hm
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
>> constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
>> 'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they com
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "fou
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>
>>>> If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
>>>> Secretary power to
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>
>> 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 resolv
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> requir
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Bas Wijnen writes:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
>>> Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in preparin
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>>> Seems
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
>> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
>>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
>> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
aside, I don't think the
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that even if the blob is GPL'd, we don't need sources
>> for it?
>
> That sounds like it would be a GPL violation.
Only if the blob is not the actual source, no?
Cheers
Luk
--
To U
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM
>> bashing?
>
> I hope I didn't take part in that. I'm very happy with
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
>> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
>> in question served in the first place.
>
> The basic difference i
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
> | majority)
> `
Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian
is more than the releases a
Joey Hess wrote:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> I, too, think that the quoted sentence above from Manoj is just plain
>> inappropriate in a message sent with the Secreatary hat on.
>
> I personally, don't belive in this "hat" concept that seems to have
> infested the project. When I write a mail, *I* a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:58:34 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> You can express your opinions on this list without any problem, though
>> your opinion should not be expressed in an official reminder to vote
>
> Why no
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:49:22 +0100, Jurij Smakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:15:36PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>>> The last time we had such a low turn out was in 2001, and then we
>>> only had less than one third the number of
Marc Haber wrote:
> What is your plan to ensure your ongoing visibility during your term?
> Do you plan to post regular "bits from the DPL", and which measures
> will you implement to prevent a failure similiar to the failures of
> your predecessors?
You seem to value visibility more than achieve
Anthony Towns wrote:
> =
> 5.2. Appointment
>
> 1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
> 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
>post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> 3. For the [-following three week
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
>> about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:57:54PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Hi Sven
>>
>> As you are suspended for one year, your proposal is not valid according to
>> [1]
>> as your key is not in the keyring.
>
> I don't recognize the suspen
Hi Sven
As you are suspended for one year, your proposal is not valid according to [1]
as your key is not in the keyring.
Please stop pestering us with this childish behaviour. It's not because you
make you very difficult to work with and as a result loose some priviliges
that every DD should hav
#x27;s intentional. He just listed his concerns which I hope will
be acted on so that we have an extra high quality arch to support for lenny :-)
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
t; that Steve (DDs running for DPL in general) is not a perfect politican ;)
>
> Not to forget that his summary was long awaited already and he would
> probably have sent it independent of running for DPL or not.
In the end it's probably just MJ Ray campaigning for Steve by making
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Sven Luther wrote:
>>> Hi list masters and DPL,
>> Hi Sven
>>
>>> Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
>>> discussion, and given
you were not going to stop
sending such mails to the list...
Cheers
Luk
PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very
clever when you just get unbanned...
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 10:08:22AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>>Hi DPL candidates
>>
>>Would you also try to reach the goals mentioned in your platform if you
>>wouldn't be elected DPL?
>>
>>Please be specific if you think one
Hi DPL candidates
Would you also try to reach the goals mentioned in your platform if you
wouldn't be elected DPL?
Please be specific if you think one of your goals can't be reached or
helped with without being a DPL or a member of the DPL team.
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Cl
ou can second a proposal without voting for it if you just want to have
it on the ballot!
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Osamu Aoki wrote:
| Hi,
Hi Osamu
| I have a technical question on how to vote for the DPL voting system for
| the following example:
|
| | Suppose there are 3 candidates:
| | * Mr. good
| | * Mr. unsuitable
| | * Mr. bad
| | Basically I want only Mr.
Hi
John Goerzen wrote:
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
You should mail it signed, but not encrypted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] You might have the same problem [0] as some
others [1] [2] [3]. You'll be listed [4] as a unique voter [5] if your
vote arrives.
Cheers
Luk
[0] h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Igor Genibel wrote:
| On Monday 21 March 2005 00:24, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
|
|>HOW TO VOTE
[...]
|>Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters
|>(">") that your reply inserts. N
61 matches
Mail list logo
