Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> We're now into the campaigning period. We have 5 candidates this
> year:
> - Jonathan Carter
> - Sruthi Chandran
> - Brian Gupta
Dear Debian Project Secretary
I seem to be having difficulty counting to 5.
I only get as far as 3 when counting the
2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman :
> And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
> wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
> ways.
This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose.
I support Ian. I do not second yet because
should be made to reform that process to something we
might stand a chance of implementing, rather than abolish it entirely,
but I'm currently unable to second Don's excellent amendments. I beg
other DDs to consider them favourably.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.
ere are a few powers which help tackle big
issues, even if they can be tackled without them.
Hope that makes sense - I'm in a rush.
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion O
it, but there's so much else to do first (after all, why
run for DPL rather than improve the wiki more? ;-) )
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In
whether or not we
want to fit within them. Until we've got some measurements, which we
can't take ourselves because we don't see the walls in the same places
as the FSF, we can't and it's rather frustrating to try.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.softwar
e Big Questions to
DPL Candidates which maybe aren't really much about the DPL vote.
I'd welcome a DPL who led work on this aspect of the project
management. I suspect that until there are a couple of minor tweaks
to the project, it's difficult to reach sufficient consensus if the
D
your attention and I await your reply with interest.
Best wishes,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"
> So you are already free to do it by delegating. A GR would be used
> to overrule your decision, but, as you already noted, there is
> already a general consensus on the issue.
Equally, the DPL is empowered to start a GR to do this. I'm very
happy to see a DPL checking th
Colin Tuckley
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > PS "leather, rinse, repeat", I guess ...
>
> I think you mean "lather" (it means to wash with soap).
Yeah, but leathering (hitting hard with a belt as a punishment) may
also be an appropriate action for someone considering standing for
DPL! ;-)
Sorr
Charles Plessy
> Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +0000, MJ Ray a écrit :
> > Charles Plessy
> > > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and
> > > all
> > > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...]
> >
Charles Plessy
> [...] my personal conclusion that this time could be
> better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these
> practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose
> to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus.
As will become clear, I di
Joey Schulze wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > It's of course possible to load firmware from extra media during
> > installation or install the right package (from non-free) when booting
> > back to an older kernel (to have network again) to be able to use the
> > network with the new kernel...
Frans Pop wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> > proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> > required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> > require
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "tho
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian,
>
> What does this mean? Paying someone to "evaluate" debian? I don't get
> this ...
As I understand it, charities current
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 encou
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Do you have any further ideas yourself on where we should spend our
> money?
How about paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian, to
adapt it to meet their needs and deploy it, or to hold meetings to do
that?
I was at a meeting for local voluntary and community
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert wrote:
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Softw
Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:53:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > "To be valid, a Debian Developers can send a signed email in which they
> > > nominate themselves, to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org lis
Steve Langasek wrote: [...]
> I'd like to raise the question of whether these IRC debates are really
> something we should have. I know Don and the panelists put a lot of time
> and effort into making the debates happen, which is part of why I ask the
> question: is it really worth all this effo
Don Armstrong wrote:
> People who'd like to help run the debate and/or collect questions can
> also volunteer with a message to -vote.
I'd like to do either, as previous years.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/Mailin
t to
> actually achieve a real, well considered, consensus in that time.
OK, so this proposal means people would spend more time on each GR.
I feel that's probably a bad consequence.
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
>
> I'm not sure what y
I believe that most debian developers ignore discussions of possible
GRs like the current one, until/unless they look like reaching the
required number of seconds to trigger a vote.
It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
simple: please could all DDs who watch pre-pr
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
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
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> > ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> > conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> > only means "I
neral freedom to modify the RFC documents.
Hope that explains
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
--
To UNSUB
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...]
> > hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this
> > area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should
> ^
> .. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others.
Just "need not c
Johannes Wiedersich wrote: [...]
> The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from
> that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they
> are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1].
I like this suggestion.
> Now the ques
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I did not mean this to be argumentative. A rhetorical flourish,
> > yes. The quote is from a US politicial, and the analogy between the
> > constitutions and bill of rights was amusing.
>
> Uh,
Neil McGovern wrote:
> With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
> potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
I deferred voting following reports of error bounces.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and onlin
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form
> (which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated
> e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
Suggest restructuring to simplify:-
To cast a vote, complete the text
> Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored,
No, you are not being censored.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> [SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
> within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
> the DFSG.
>
> In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
> of "component", "soft
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
> used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
> violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as
> not blocking the release. [...]
It seems tha
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily
> coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population.
>
> Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a
> myriad of other problems that Manoj has
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> You think it speaks ill of people when they are demotivated by
> people saying nasty things about them, or ascribing horrible motives to
> them? Amazing. Me, I would be liable to just break out some beer and
> watch some movies rather
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
I've added Neil McGovern under Secretary to
webwml/english/intro/organization.data
Hope that's OK,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://w
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
> anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill
> any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of
> non-packagers into Debian. [...]
I hope it won't kill tha
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition
> of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple
> options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal expression of
> the opinion or will of an o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the
> debian-devel-announce
>mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer
>Status";
>
> - Given the importance of defining
e been named. The Debian project
is one of very few groups where ordinary free software developers can
issue (draft and decide) such a statement about what's affected their
project and users.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online sh
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:39:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Debian's people (i.e. debian-legal and so, even equiped with all the
> > TINLA and IANAL disclaimers) are a well regarded and quite well
> > informed body in this regard.
>
> Well-regarded b
(and misdescriptions of)
debian's position about using trademarks to bolt down free software.
I believe developing an agreed statement on this is a good move.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ===Begin resolution text===
> The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla
> Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks
> from a distance. This is an issue that
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
> > says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software.
>
>
oundation
> has now turned the trademarked version of their Free Software into
> software that is no longer free.
> ===End resolution text===
Regards,
- --
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://m
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray dijo [Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:15PM +]:
> > Well, for example, Marc Brockschmidt has spent time writing a
> > platform, canvassing and campaigning, which he suggested he would not
> > have done if an acceptable cand
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we
> > could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person
> > without any serious problems.
>
>
The first go at the DPL Debate Logs have been uploaded to
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/irc/dpl-debate-2008/
Please let me know if there are any obvious errors.
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> One thing I will commit to (right now) is to encourage people to
> ignore (or even better, castigate) nay-sayers who have nothing more to
> contribute to Debian than poisonous tabloid-style rhetoric and
> negativity.
Can the candidates demonstrate
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a
> > document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers
> > could understand why the applicant was gi
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:27PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> >You served a term as "Assistant Project Leader". What are the
> >differences between the job you did then and the job you would
> >do as DPL?
>
> Mainly, I would expect to push some more high
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's
> > great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step
> > independent double-checking in that task
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. [...]
>
> I must admit that I've read some "Getting Things Done" related literature
> and that this organization me
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] It's well known that small
> task (when they take less than 5 minutes) are usually best done "on the
> fly" instead of accumulating them. [...]
Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. See
Ganging your mosquito tasks http://www.4
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Why is no one responding to the fact that the last ingestion of
> new blood did not solve the problems? [...]
Myself, I have not yet confirmed whether that claim is fact or not,
and if it did not solve the problems, whether it eased the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Let me get this straight. The argument is that since it is hard
> to remove people for cause in Debian, let us just start removing people
> at random, even if they are performing well, and maybe, sometime,
> somehow, that change may lea
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/03/08 at 09:57 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Secondly, delegation should make X's task clear to both this project
> > and SPI in a robust way and seemed the most obvious to me. How does
> > the constitution give th
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/03/08 at 16:22 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There seemed to be broad consensus on BSD-style as default with other
> > DFSG licences like GPLv2 being allowed, didn't there?
>
> I don't think so. Some people want a B
ork is done by sending to a public list, so that part of a
secretary's role isn't needed.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.t
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> It seems to me that, for this issue to be solved, we first need a
> clear consensus on debian-www@ about:
> - the plan we are going to follow
I believe we need legal advice on the validity of the various plans
before there will be a clear consensus
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > and I really haven't seen much from Sam during his term.
>
> For example, there's been: [6 dda posts and a blog category]
> which is pretty comparable to either my own Steve's communicat
Hi DPL candidates!
Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and
bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org
to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright statements.
In particular, delegation seems necessary to avoid bureaucratic
blocks to getting impa
ems no need to repeat the maximum
size and it could make future amendments smaller.
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about considering ctte members having failed to participate in two
> consecutive decisions as having resigned?
Maybe three rather than two, but I like that
aj wrote: [...]
> ...so much for non-adversarial campaigning, I guess.
Why? So far, this is only adversarial questioning of a candidate.
It doesn't necessarily require adversarial campaigning in reply.
Or is aba campaigning for one of the other candidates?
FWIW, I think each of the candidates ha
e done if an acceptable candidate had already nominated. If an
acceptable candidate is nominated now, we've lost that time. We could
try to save that sort of time by rewarding early nominations with more
campaigning opportunities, by officially killing the convention
against campaigning du
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Campaigning on debian-vote *and* canvassing for help? Is this really
> > what aj meant by "summarise their plans for their term"?
>
> No, this is just answerin
fear of
being left with only one unacceptable late nomination.
Propose it and I'll second. Could we start the two votes at once to
avoid voter fatigue?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop buil
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Additional people to help select questions, prod the discussion
> channels, and otherwise actually make things happen are needed too.
my biggest flaw is that I'll never be elected DPL [17:02:15]
so... I'm happy to try helping with the debate again
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 02:26:41PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >This is something where the project isn't managing
> >expectations very well. [...]
>
> You seem to be trying a land-grab on the word "cooperatively"
e too
surprised when people expect project systems to be open and allow
autonomous direct action more readily.
Cc'ing BTS for the debian-faq [please trim submit from followups].
Please resend to anyone else calling the debian project a cooperative.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
> > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
> > where do
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> >
, so I'd
expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do
nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consum
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, as I have said before, we should use straight per-candidate
> approval voting.
[...]
> and if more people vote `yes' for Alice than vote `no' for Alice then
> Alice is appointed - regardless of any votes for or against Bob,
> Carol, etc.
Isn't that alwa
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> It's not about opinions. It's about people. The problem most often
> materializes when there are heated opinions, but the fundamental problem
> is when people can't work together with mutual respect. If you end up
> with people who intensely dislik
PI voting system:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.spi.general/482
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/spi#elections
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co
;
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/08/msg00096.html
I feel this amendment would approve current (good IMO) practice,
allowing the handover period.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Since we have been in discussion for so long, would it be OK if
> we actually started voting on the weekend of the 23rd? [...]
Fine by me. May your trip be enjoyable and less tiring than you expect.
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Aníbal Monsalve
Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
way being
suggested. Indeed, such acts are probably against the DPL procedures.
If we ever elect a really petty DPL, we've far bigger problems than
the handover weeks!
This amendment merely normalises the handover. Please support it.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.u
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> > the IRC debate but before voting closes.
>
> No! We have a campaigning period for a reaso
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral
> > panel than now. [...]
> It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the
> panel; so it should be as neutral as p
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week. [...]
>
> This would probably mean that organizing the debate might have
> to
ince June 2003 have been unifying?
Any road up, it's here: will anyone propose a combined amendment?
I'm not sure whether I can or whether that would affect either of the
others.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire ht
e. If any candidate wants to campaign for longer,
they should nominate as early as possible.
This is orthogonal to the amendment "Point 2 remains as before".
Regards,
- --
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.t
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
>
> From AJ's original mail:
> ...
> >Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally
> clear. [...]
It's as clear as it is now: DPL (not DPL-elect). The end of the
polling period is not necessarily the election date.
Notice polling closed before the DPL's election fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
> >post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
>
> Is there an
th several overlapping options, IMO.
I think we need to be more liberal at putting options on the ballot.
One way to do that is more practice.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sys
're one of the people who I don't
> want to upload to the Debian archive. Any proposal which will allow
> uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me.
Would you explain why, please? Is this about Michelle Konzack in
particular or a wider class of users?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - s
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] After that, the applicant could
> apply for the ability to upload already-sponsored packages, and leave it
> at that. The key would be added to the keyring (a separate keyring if
> needed for technical reasons).
>
> If the applicant wanted, they c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I propose the wording changes in the diff below and request seconds.
I have tried to include only wording bugfixes. In particular, this
does not remove jetring maintainers from section 1, change section 3's
conditions or remove section 4's advice.
T
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at
> least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding).
How can anyone second that in its current state? It's rather buggy.
I like the idea, but please withdraw your seconds until t
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > == N-M Delays
>
> This one suck, because NM delays are mostly fixeable, and DM will just
> make them not painful at all for DD, depriving the system to be fixed.
> This is exactly the use case I fear.
>
> That's why I'd like
1 - 100 of 755 matches
Mail list logo
