On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
> then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other
> option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that
> is
Please, as a previous vote runner, can we only have 5 seconders rather
than the (currently) 82 DDs who have signed it so far?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Text of GR
>
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's
>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> (since it's a test site I guess that might be invalid one day)
It is very, very likely to be invalid in the coming weeks/months. I
shall endeavour to copy any replies to the topic over to this list for
posterity.
Neil
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]:
> > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba determination" is? I
> > couldn't find anything online about this...
>
> There was a time when the IRS didn't approve any new
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:53:10AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > I understand coming up with a solid business plan for a "Debian
> > Foundation" is not something that can be done in a few weeks.
>
> You are correct. It's going to take 6-12 months of work to create the
> foundation,
>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/29/19 11:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Imagine that we have a program that has compile time support for systemd
> > and for other mechanisms. It provides enhanced functionality when built
> > against systemd, but when so
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:14:45AM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> (However, if this copy, too, does not appear in the web archive, then
> I will ask listmas...@lists.debian.org or file a bug as appropriate.)
>
Your (new) mail does now appear publically accessible to all who search
for it in
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
>
> All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair.
>
> === END GR TEXT ===
Seconded.
Neil
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private.
>
> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private
>list archives" is repealed.
> 2. In keeping with
On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 06:53:12PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/03/16 at 23:33 +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > According to the constitution (5.2. Appointment), project
> > leader elections should begin "six weeks before the leadership
> > post becomes
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 11:33:33PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> The new project leader term starts on Friday the 17th of April,
> 2016. The time line looks like:
>
> | Period | Start| End|
>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 05:50:06AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:13:22PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Why? What target level are you aiming for and what's the rationale?
Hopefully https
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 09:13:10AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 20/03/15 at 20:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:56:23PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org [2015-03-20 19:27 +0100]:
I'd be more sympathetic to funding
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:08:02PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org [2015-03-12 10:16 +0100]:
All candidates: how will you reconcile that with the fact that the DPL
currently only has a limited vision of what funds are available, and how
they evolved
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 09:57:28AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Neil,
in your platform, you advocate PPAs and modernising our build and
infrastructure.
What's the DPL's role in this? Or, put differently, couldn't you
just start working on this without the DPL hat? Why not? What's the
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Dear candidates,
do you think the time is ripe for dropping section §5 of the Debian
Social Contract [1], namely Works that do not meet our free software
standards or should we wait more?
I don't think it's time to drop
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:09:37PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Question(s) to all candidates:
What is your perception of fundraising in and around Debian?
Short of DebConf (and more recently Outreachy), we don't do anything of
significance.
If anything, what changes would you like to help
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:56:23PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org [2015-03-20 19:27 +0100]:
I'd be more sympathetic to funding someone (perhaps via an
internship, or gap year student who's going on to accountancy) to
help set up a system so we can
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:58:35PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org [2015-03-20 19:39 +0100]:
However, let me be clear: I intend on spending /more/ than that
surplus. I would like our reserves to be at a lower level than
they are now.
Why? What
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:06:26PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:44:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
* Outreach. Every team complains (quite rightly!) about the lack of
people to do the work. Yet we seem to be rather poor at actively
recruiting people to come
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:03:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
What is your perception of DebConf and its organisation?
If any, what changes would you like to implement?
The history of the DebConf team is long and varied, and has changed
quite a bit since I was involved.
(Note: background
Hi AJ,
(A fair amount of snipping follows, but hopefully there's still the
context :)
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 01:20:15AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
the DPL position is /the/ optimal place to be in Debian if you want to
be innovative.
Is it fair to expect cool new innovations within Debian if
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:07:21PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Will you revoke 20131008134615.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info or do you
think this authorization is useful?
From what I can see, it seems sensible to have this in place. If DSA
doesn't like it, or would like it changed of course,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:16:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
In his platform, Neil wrote:
I will spend some money we have horded. Debian currently holds
approximately $200,000 at SPI alone. Our donators didn't give us money
for it to be sat around in a bank account, we should
Even if it were as ready, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a
separate GR. Voting once instead of twice is nice for everyone, but
conflating two separate decisions in a single GR has been proven to be
unwise in the past. And I'm especially wary of doing so with a
constitutional
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:52:39PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
Sune == Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
Sune I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression
Sune was that - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a
Sune good idea - that they should
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:43:13PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
Whelp, that wasn't meant to happen. Apologies for the
This is the first call for votes on the above GR. PLEASE NOTE: voting is
not yet open.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, November 5th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, November 18th, 2014
The following ballot is for voting on init system
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:53:36PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
[ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system
[ ] Choice 2: Support alternative init
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi Neil,
On 04/11/14 at 17:53 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
[ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:11:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think this is still possible. It's a shame that this slightly odd
pre-CFV (CFV posted before voting period opens) wasn't explicitly a
draft, and posted only to -vote.
This vote has currently used up about 15 hours of my time,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I cannot parse the last bullet point, sorry (and any the release
team?). Also, the proposal does not mention the release team.
Reasonable changes to preserve or improve sysvinit support should be
accepted through the jessie
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:30:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 04/11/14 at 17:53 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e
[ ] Choice 1
Note: this is a re-issued CfV, please use the ballot below or your vote
will be rejected. Voting is now open.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, November 5th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, November 18th, 2014
The following ballot is for
Hi Sam,
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
think this is an important issue.
My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
you received.
nontrivial ongoing
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:31:43PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 28 October 2014 18:20, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
With all of those facilities, we've taken different approaches; with the
mail transport agent, for example, we've defined an interface that all
mail transport
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:16:14PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
On 29 October 2014 13:40, Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
* if we go the MTA/sh route, then we define lowest common denominator
interface of an init system and only init systems providing that
(possibly with a systemd
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:27:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Neil McGovern writes (Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional
decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]):
As far as I'm aware, we don't actually say that anywhere. Applications can
only /rely
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 Contitution.
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,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:14:44AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 12.17:14 Neil McGovern a écrit :
Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems
This is actively misleading in a least four ways:
Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
---
The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Dear fellow Developers,
I would like to propose the following amendment proposal,
and I hereby call for seconds.
All received and valid.
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed
amendment is considered harmful, let me know).
Received (well, found in the middle of a mail thread, thanks for
changing the subject though :P) and
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: GR option text on ballots):
I'd like to propose:
I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be
positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as
they are not
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
(CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.)
I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
`directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)).
This resets the minimum
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
Project Leader, and thus does not require seconds, but will record those
seconding anyway.
Neil
--
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
under sysvinit should continue to
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds.
Your proposal has been received and is signed correctly.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Seconded.
I'm getting a bad signature from you, can you try again, perhaps with a
clearsigned mail?
Thanks,
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:27:17AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 14.04.2014, 00:00 + schrieb devo...@vote.debian.org:
The winners are:
Option 1 Lucas Nussbaum
congrats, and all the best for the next term.
(Also congrats to Neil for getting a very good result
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:15:46PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A way around that would be to use time-limited delegations *only*.
Q: What do the candidates think of that idea? If you agree it'd be good,
would do you engage in doing so for the duration of your term?
I think that there's
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:21:06AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
assume that a package maintainer is active but is doing a bad job
regarding our standards (things like ignoring problems in stable, breaking
backwards compatibility for no good reason,
Hi Brian,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:54:50PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the
current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts
are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to
change the
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:03:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Do you think it's appropriate for these organizers to use Debian's name in
seeking local sponsorship without consulting the DPL?
Sorry for not being clearer, but no. I think that a central repository
and/or sponsors
Hi Enrico,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:26:01AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
1. a team that works well and in a sustainable way, and how a DPL can
bring thankfulness and appreciation;
I think that most of our teams work well and are sustainable. The level
of sustainability can sometimes teeter
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:25:02AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Because as long as we document it, it's very hard to claim that
non-free is not part of Debian, when
Hi Josselin,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What is your stance on disruptive members in the committee?
I would prefer TC to work with each other constructively, but I also
recognise that this isn't always possible when it comes to a
controversial decision.
Hi Gunnar,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:55:35PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
So, back to the case: What's your take on this issue? How much can one
part of the Debian universe of subprojects expect the money it
generated be available for its future? Should we set a clear number?
On the specific
Hi Thomas,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:07:39PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Though, it is my understanding that those who are capable of doing the
work are too busy. So what is your plan? Is using Debian money for
sponsoring that work one of the things you would do? If yes, up to what
amount
Hi Paul,
Slightly re-arranging the question order, if that's ok.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Please share your thoughts on the SC and DFSG, in particular:
Which items of the DFSG should apply to which types of works?
How do you currently determine which files
Hi Lucas,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:27:52PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
In your rebuttal, you are quite critical of the idea of a board.
You raise concerns about the risk of creating a cabal, and about
transparency and democratic accountability.
I fully agree that those concerns are valid
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:23:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Please imagine a Debian without the DPL position. How would it be
better, how would it be worse, how would things work differently,
would it be desirable?
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of aspects to this, one from an external
Hi Ana!
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
DebConf is one of the biggest expenses of Debian, every year we look
for sponsorship and we had (and have) sponsors who were sponsoring
DebConf as a way of giving their annual donation to Debian and
not necessarily
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
To the candidates,
Which packages from Debian contrib/non-free do you use or have installed?
On my laptop, I have: firmware-realtek, icc-profiles, intel-microcode, skype
and steam from non-free, and flashplugin-nonfree,
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:42, Filippo Rusconi lopi...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:10:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While I understand the question, I'm not sure this is very relevant.
Yes, Debian is about
On 21 Mar 2014, at 14:37, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:27:11PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
However, Debian is not a cult.
Indeed not. We are a clan. Which inspires my next question.
Hi Hector,
On 14 Mar 2014, at 13:25, Hector Oron zu...@debian.org wrote:
Hello DPL candidates,
First of all congratulations for your nominations. I have several
questions for you, I hope you do not mind to reply:
Thanks for your question, it’s good to see a DSA member engaging with the
Hi Sylvestre,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
* Are you allowed by your employer to work during the week on DPL tasks
or is it something that you are going to do on your free time?
A bit of both. Collabora allows for a certain percentage of time to be
spent
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:11:27PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Contrary to what Lars says, I think there is a clear difference
between these two approaches. ISTM that Lucas is much more hands-on
and (for example) and takes much more of a close interest in the
processes adopted by teams, than
Hi Lars,
Thanks for kicking off the questions this year!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:49:41PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
For all DPL candidates:
We have a number of delegated teams. How detailed should the
delegations be?
I've written my view of the constitution in quite a detailed post
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify
paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
ol
liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the
Hi Wouter,
On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
After some consideration, I accept this amendment.
Thank you very much :)
Amendment B
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 06:47:24PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
Hi Kurt,
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
Dear DSA, until the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole
Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of
being a whole
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
So I've put up a vote page with my
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
==
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:19:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
Wouter, are you going to accept Neil's amendment, or should I
create 2 options?
Wouter, please don't accept Neil's second amendment (the one
disallowing modification by the
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
Neil
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
And here's those amendments.
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to further reading
Justification: I think that it's better to keep the CoC
On 2 Mar 2014, at 13:36, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm very wary about passing resolutions which require work from future
persons unidentified. Presumeably it would need a person who is a) keen
on the desktop system
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
users. So the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
case in the first place? Could
Hi Wouter,
Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
That
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?
You mean my TC resolution draft.
Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.
Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
Assuming Debian keyring refers to the package debian-keyring (which should
be a reasonable safe assumption, right?)
This assumption is incorrect: the Debian keyring is defined by devotee
for the leader2013 vote as:
cat
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think I would generally be fine about an informational message in
Debian Project News about an fundraising campaign for something that
clearly benefits Debian. Btw, in the specific example of your book, have
you considered
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:02:06AM +, Moray Allan wrote:
I nominate myself as a prospective DPL for the 2013 election.
Thanks, received and is a valid nomination.
Neil
(as Assistant Secretary)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 09:44:32AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx secret...@debian.org writes:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
*clears throat*
I hereby nominate myself as a
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:58:04AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
I really should not be writing this. I should be sleeping.
I have to get up for work in less than six hours. But I
*really* would love to know a DD vote outcome on something
like the below text, though written with less sarcasm,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:50:59AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Is there any other policies that you disagree with,
No.
and would you be looking to change any of these as DPL?
Not without first trying to achieve consensus.
I'm slightly confused by my being copied in to your reply
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:13:38AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But I've learned that we need to communicate this a whole lot better. Ideas
how
... would be best directed to debian-project :)
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key -
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Also, I think the CoC is wrong in making policy about who to send
replies to. Some people actually prefer getting replies, while others
don't. Since there's a header that nicely allows you to specify just
that, I think a more
Hi,
This is a second call for votes for GR: Debian project members
The timeline is:
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Tuesday, 5th Oct 2010
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Monday, 18th Oct 2010
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution on Project's
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:25:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk writes:
Yes, it would. And so would expecting people to read the mail. Given
that there were a number (28?) sent before voting peoriod started, I'm
not convinced that people will actually do
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:47:49PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Neil
McGovern wrote:
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. You may rank options equally (as
long as all choices X you make are 1 or 2).
Please make
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
