On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 04:09:04PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Presumably the decryption key could be unlocked after the election
> > and placed alongside the balots; since it should expire and be
> > revoked after the completion of the vote, this sho
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 04:09:04PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I guess the decryption key for encrypted ballots would be of some
> > issue, but that's about it.
> Presumably the decryption key could be unlocked after the election and
> placed alongside the balots; since it should expire and be
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:26:34AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >> Which only goes to show that you really do not understand
> > >> how Debian works. Are you not aware that vote have already been
> > >> audited before? That anyone with root on maste
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:26:34AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Which only goes to show that you really do not understand
> >> how Debian works. Are you not aware that vote have already been
> >> audited before? That anyone with root on master already has access
> >> to all ballots? That the
On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane verbalised:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>
> Should the
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>>
On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>
>>> Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>>> secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
>>> fo
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>> Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>> secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
>> formally have the election run by the secretary, b
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>> This _implication_ that the Secretary wouldn't properly run a vote
>> concerning his own appointment is tiresome. If that's what you
>> meant, please say it directly.
>
> It is
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> This _implication_ that the Secretary wouldn't properly run a vote
> concerning his own appointment is tiresome. If that's what you meant,
> please say it directly. If not, what _did_ you mean?
Personally, I'd think we're much mo
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Kalle Kivimaa]
>>> Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of
>>> a GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
>> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, h
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Kalle Kivimaa]
>> > Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of a
>> > GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
>
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
>> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, how delicious.
>
> If
[Kalle Kivimaa]
> > Actually, it is a direct procedure. The developers may, by way of a
> > GR, override any decision of the DPL, including an appointment.
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> A vote run by the secretary obviously. Oh, how delicious.
If you've got something to say, say it.
This _implicatio
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:19:22PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> 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 y
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.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps you'll never change your position because this is your
>> reading of the DFSG. But for the sake of democracy you have to
>> assume that people think different, so it is not fair to impose your
>> view.
>
> Thankfully, Debian is not a
16 matches
Mail list logo
