Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:09:37PM +0200]:
> Can I say that this is rather annoying from a procedural stand
> point? You already called for a vote.
I'm sorry, I did this precisely to avoid an annoying procedural
standstill. And (as I told you privately) later found out the
requireme
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:09:37PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:08:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my
> > CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It
> > currently has four seconders onl
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:08:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my
> CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It
> currently has four seconders only, so in order to have the three
> presented options in the ballot:
>
While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my
CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It
currently has four seconders only, so in order to have the three
presented options in the ballot:
> ===
On 2016-09-21 11:01:50, Iain Lane wrote:
> This is a new proposal which supersedes my previous one
> <20160920165427.oeiaxkms7e63bao4@nightingale> (that proposal is
> withdrawn).
>
>
>
> Title: debian-private shall remain pr
Iain Lane writes ("Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge
difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> I'm not quite sure of the terminology - I think it should be a separate
> option to be voted on on the same ballot as Gunnar's proposal.
I think
Hi,
I had seconded another version of this, I also second this wording
instead (as an option to the ballot)
Le 21/09/2016 à 12:01, Iain Lane a écrit :
>
>
> Title: debian-private shall remain private
>
> The text of the GR
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:24:03PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Iain Lane writes ("New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge
> > difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> > > This
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Iain Lane writes ("New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge
> difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> > This is a new proposal which supersedes my previous one
> > <201609201654
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR:
Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > 2b. Participants may declassify the material of others where
> >
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> 2b. Participants may declassify the material of others where
> consent has explicitly been given by the authors of all of the
> material being declassified.
What about discussions where some of the participants hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> FAOD I assume that this is to be taken as an amendment to Gunnar's,
> which replaces the whole text with your text. (Otherwise it would end
> up in a separate vote.) On that basis,
>
> S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Iain Lane writes ("New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge
difficulty of declassifying debian-private)"):
> This is a new proposal which supersedes my previous one
> <20160920165427.oeiaxkms7e63bao4@nightingale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
>
>
> Title: debian-private shall remain private
>
> The text of the GR is replaced with the following.
>
> 1. The
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:07:45AM +, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:55:52AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > > This message fits your description ("the author is quoting only his or
> > > her own
> > > text"), and so it would be allowed *for anyone* to declassify it, without
> > >
15 matches
Mail list logo
