DPL vote timeline

I'm proposing the following vote timeline: Nomination period: Sunday 2021-03-07 - Saturday 2021-03-13 Campaigning period: Sunday 2021-03-14 - Saturday 2021-04-03 Voting period: Sunday 2021-04-04 - Saturday 2021-04-17 The new term will start on 2021-04-21 Kurt

Re: DPL vote timeline

So with the year corrected: Nomination period: Sunday 2020-03-08 - Saturday 2020-03-14 Campaigning period: Sunday 2020-03-15 - Saturday 2020-04-04 Voting period: Sunday 2020-04-05 - Saturday 2020-04-18 The new term will start on 2020-04-21 Kurt

Re: DPL vote timeline

The timeline seems off by a year, but otherwise lgtm. As I mentioned on -private, I'm going on vacation 2020-02-21 through 2020-02-28. I will make a decision about whether I'm going to run again on that vacation and let folks know before the nomination period starts. --Sam

DPL vote timeline

I'n proposing the following vote timeline: Nomination period: Sunday 2019-03-08 - Saturday 2019-03-14 Campaigning period: Sunday 2019-03-15 - Saturday 2019-04-04 Voting period: Sunday 2019-04-05 - Saturday 2019-04-18 The new term will start on 2019-04-21 Kurt

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

engange in those discussions, even if he is not that active anymore in Debian/systemd since he moved to RedHat. When the initial options for the ballot were proposed, I contacted Martin privately, that I was not happy with the existing options (I think that was roughly two weeks ago). I did not follo

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

Hello all, Sam Hartman [2019-11-29 8:46 -0500]: > > "Simon" == Simon Richter writes: > > Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather > Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the > Simon> discussion period, I think that having something

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

Hi Sam, On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:46:31AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > Martin [Pitt] has publically stated he's one of the people I reached out > to in developing my proposals. > As I understand, he's been active in maintaining systemd both in Ubuntu and > Debain. Indeed, most of my

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

> "Simon" == Simon Richter writes: Simon> While I generally agree with Sam here that it is rather Simon> disingenious to add a new option right at the end of the Simon> discussion period, I think that having something proposed by Simon> the systemd maintainers on the ballot

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

Hi, On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:22:37PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained > > sponsors. > just sigh. > Michael, I'm very very likely to sponsor anything you have written so > far. Please publish something so it's on the table

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 08:11:48AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: [...] > I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained sponsors. just sigh. Michael, I'm very very likely to sponsor anything you have written so far. Please publish something so it's on the table and Sam cannot

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

>>>>> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes: Ansgar> Hi, I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before Ansgar> calling for a vote. Michael Biebl said he is looking into Ansgar> drafting an alternative, but has been too busy with work in An

Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

Hi, I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before calling for a vote. Michael Biebl said he is looking into drafting an alternative, but has been too busy with work in the last few days. He would therefore like to have a bit more time to prepare. Ansgar

DPL vote results

Hi, It seems that the automatic mail didn't get send. The winner is Sam Hartman. I will send an official mail later. Kurt signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Vote status

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:20:13AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a > ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will > hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I > can reproces

Vote status

The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I can reprocess your email. There is no reason to revote at the moment. If you did vote properly you

Ballot for the vote

Here is the ballot for the vote. Voting period starts 2018-04-03 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2018-04-16 23:59:59 UTC This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

Re: DPL 2017 vote timeline

Campaigning period: 2017-03-12 - 2017-04-01 Voting period: 2017-04-02 - 2017-04-15 The voting page is also up: https://www.debian.org/vote/2017/vote_001 Kurt

DPL 2017 vote timeline

The timeline this year is: Nomination period: 2017-03-05 - 2015-03-11 Campaigning period: 2017-03-12 - 2015-04-01 Voting period: 2017-04-02 - 2017-04-15 Kurt

debian-vote@lists.debian.org Message Bounced !!

�8C�C1`A8v84�AE{B1 \0Ae6Cv84u28b37 debian-vote@lists.debian.org, b11NEClE8a0FR30�0C`A8v84u35[50�AENF6^10b37QE0N4E]F2~CF�85�C7[83v84g81�50002O60SEF�FDeE0lD5SD1�01b16NCEsB0W28e36R30m88`6Fv84NFBO55eF6R3B002 pB9QFB�D9�CCfF4eB0`A8v84^10b37

debian-vote@lists.debian.org Message Bounce !

http://mimg.126.net/hxm/mail/edm/20141116/banner.jpg; useMap=#Map border=0> NB2r31v84 debian-vote@lists.debian.org `A8Y7D�1A b11NEClE8a0FR30�0C`A8v84b40g09O20Q65v84e36NF6{B1N2DeE0lD5O20�12R30`A8v84e36NF6{B1�0CVE0N3A`A8v84^10b37]F2�AB�3Bk62SMTP/ POPg0DRA1

debian-vote@lists.debian.org Message Bounced !!

�8C�C1`A8v84�AE{B1 \0Ae6Cv84u28b37 debian-vote@lists.debian.org, b11NEClE8a0FR30�0C`A8v84u35[50�AENF6^10b37QE0N4E]F2~CF�85�C7[83v84g81�50002O60SEF�FDeE0lD5SD1�01b16NCEsB0W28e36R30m88`6Fv84NFBO55eF6R3B002 pB9QFB�D9�CCfF4eB0`A8v84^10b37

debian-vote@lists.debian.org Message Bounce !

http://mimg.126.net/hxm/mail/edm/20141116/banner.jpg; useMap=#Map border=0> NB2r31v84 debian-vote@lists.debian.org `A8Y7D�1A b11NEClE8a0FR30�0C`A8v84b40g09O20Q65v84e36NF6{B1N2DeE0lD5O20�12R30`A8v84e36NF6{B1�0CVE0N3A`A8v84^10b37]F2�AB�3Bk62SMTP/ POPg0DRA1

Re: Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:11:32PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > [ Amazing as it might seem for this issue, I forgot to sign my > mail. Here it is again. Apologies for the duplication ] > > Debian Project Secretary, > > It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to

Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

[ Amazing as it might seem for this issue, I forgot to sign my mail. Here it is again. Apologies for the duplication ] Debian Project Secretary, It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to the debian-vote mailing list, containing the text that follows: [1] Message-ID

Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Debian Project Secretary, It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to the debian-vote mailing list, containing the text that follows: [1] Message-ID: <20160902041505.gd3...@gwolf.org> === BEGIN GR TEXT === Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain priva

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

uch. > - our technical committee operates completely in the open (and is >required to do so!) Actually, they're only required to vote (etc) in the open. There is a debian-ctte-private, and we have reason to suspect it is currently being used[1]. > - we encourage everyone interested/in

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:27:19PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > When I joined Debian I endorsed the social contract [0] which said > "we won't hide problems". "we won't hide problems" is not the same thing as "we'll put all our garbage out in the open"... -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical*

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > [something pro-transparency] I would strongly encourage you to try to come up with a proposal which represents your own view about what should be done. Yo

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:27:19PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > One of the benefits of eventually publishing all discussions You are not suggesting that we should publish posts where their author explicitly says they should never be declassified,

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:07:43PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Making the discussions public is a way of demonstrating conspiracy theories > > along

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > Since then there have been other important discussions [examples] It seems to me that most of those conversations are excellent examples of using -private prop

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the reply. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:07:43PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > ] This list has hosted a number of significant discussions over the years, > ] including most of the discussion inspiring the original statement > ] of Debian's

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

nk folks are renegging on that ideal, but even if that's what the majority decides, I don't think it absolves me from my commitment. So if the proposal that attempts to deauthorise people from releasing their own posts to the public gets on a ballot, I'll be putting all my -private posts up on my own w

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:28:37PM +, Bas Wijnen wrote: I had a longer reply to the rest of this mail, but I'm not seeing the point. > Which leads me to a repeat of a point I've seen before (and I didn't follow > the > entire discussion, so I may have missed an answer to it): are there any

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

* Gunnar Wolf: " Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list" (Thu, 1 Sep 2016 23:15:05 -0500): > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 21:22 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:17:46AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 23:15 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain > > >

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:17:46AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 23:15 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:53:01PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Then there is a proposal from Iain Lane : > > > Title: debian-private shall remain private > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:15:05PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >lisa archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 06:51 +, Anthony Towns wrote: > It is obviously okay for anyone who posted to disclose what they > wrote > to -private at any point; maybe a feasible and interesting starting > point would be a service that let's people easily disclose their own > old mails to -private.

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

er to it): are there any examples of threads that the public would benefit from if they were made public? (Obviously don't quote them here on -vote, but you can talk about what kind of messages this is about.) I can't think of anything for which all the following are true: - - It is a t

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le dimanche, 11 septembre 2016, 11.01:09 h CEST Anthony Towns a écrit : > > In that sense, my reading of the original version of the GR that just > > failed was pretty much "eh, we don't care that much about transparency > >

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:36:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: > > I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also > > need some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, [...] > Furthermore, I think it's unrealistic that

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > My understanding is that at least some of us don't want a generic > process right now, but would be quite fine with someone trying to work > out a process that works for a well defined subset of debian-private. That's... an

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Le 13/09/2016 à 08:36, David Kalnischkies a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:16:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: >> This is a very well defined goal that you have here. If you do care >> and do volunteer for the task, why don't you try to identify the >> relevant messages for your historic

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:16:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > This is a very well defined goal that you have here. If you do care > and do volunteer for the task, why don't you try to identify the > relevant messages for your historic interest, and propose a process to > declassify only this

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: > I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also > need some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, that can't be > public. Some of these things can't immediately be public, and some > other things can't ever.

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Le 10/09/2016 à 10:46, David Kalnischkies a écrit : > 2. My interest in declassification is (surprise surprise) apt > related, as its history has obvious plot holes. It is hard enough > to follow over a few lists which are used pretty

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Bart Martens writes: > Anyone reading something of potential public value on debian-private > can always request the original author for permission to quote in > public. Note that the original author is the only person who can fully > assess how private the message was, since

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Le jeudi, 1 septembre 2016, 23.15:05 h CEST Gunnar Wolf a écrit : > === 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

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Le dimanche, 11 septembre 2016, 11.01:09 h CEST Anthony Towns a écrit : > In that sense, my reading of the original version of the GR that just > failed was pretty much "eh, we don't care that much about transparency > when it comes to ourselves and it's time we admit that". Which is fine, I

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

* Anthony Towns , 2016-09-11, 11:01: - after 2017/01/01 00:00:00 UTC, every post to -private will be published publically 3.14159 years after receipt * no exceptions. * posting to -private on any topic is okay if there's some reason for it to be private rather

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:53:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Something like that, yes. It might even be possible to, for example, > infer what the topic of an activity spike was likely to be, and then > infer from timing who was giving input into sensitive discussions; > [...] > Detailed

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > * We do not want to introduce any new barriers to declassification. I do. Regards, Bart Martens

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:27:31AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > * Whatever else people come up. I suggest to just repeal the 2005 GR, so we don't have any rules on declassification of debian-private by GR. I suggest we rely on common sense instead: The part "-private" in debian-private should

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 23:15 -0500, Gunnar Wolf 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 paragraph

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:40:41PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > I would be very interested in an explanation [off-list & encrypted if > it is too private] as I can't come up with a reason why that could be > a concious decision to not show the number of mails sent to d-private > over time as

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:44:07PM +0100]: > Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification > of the debian-private mailing list"): > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private li

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > Myabe Ian fears (I don't want to attribute ideas he has not yet > discussed) that somebody external to the project will try to correlate > events with

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Decl

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:27PM +0100]: > For me the ethical basis for this is that people who have posted > messages to -private did so (and continue to do so) on the basis of > the policy in force at the time when they decided to send their > message. It is the policy in force

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

David Kalnischkies dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:40:41PM +0200]: > Just to ensure we talk about the same: I was referring to: > https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-private.png vs e.g. > https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-vote.png . > > I would be very interested in an explanation [off-list &

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

rom Nicolas and re-submitted as option 1, and Ian's very sensible ideas as well as option 2, and I don't know if others will submit a third or fourth wording, it has much higher probability of changing our current (broken) status quo than a vote with only one option. Frankly, I haven't analyzed it

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for > >

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > So what is it what you propose? > > 2, 4 and 5 are clearly intended to "tie hands"¹ to specific "whatevers" > fit

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for > declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Basic exam

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Micha Lenk writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > [stuff] Thanks for a useful contribution. > The last two paragraphs might be off-topic on d-vote already, so let's better > not discuss further technical/imp

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

the delay is over, but would not hinder immediate discussion amongst DDs. The last two paragraphs might be off-topic on d-vote already, so let's better not discuss further technical/implementation details here. Is there a better place where I should bring this idea up for discussion? Best regards, Micha

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 4. But, any weakening of the privacy expectations must not be > > retr

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > As I read the messages the principles which are partly in conflict (or > which seem to be in conflict) are: I think the "conflict" runs much deeper in that we have different opinions on a) what a useful declassification is and b) who

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Micha Lenk writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > Thank you for the new proposal which now addresses my major concerns. > Retrospective policy changes are now explicitly forbidden (#4). And I > totally a

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 TL,DR: Nice proposal, seconded. Am 08.09.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Ian Jackson: > Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for > declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): >> If we're going to h

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > I would agree to something like this. However, Point #2 has shown to > be not implementable in practice for eight years already. Point #2 is my "In case v

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100]: > (...) > So, how about something like this: > > Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private > > 1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005 > General Resolution titled "Declassification of

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list"): > If we're going to have another discussion and vote about this, I > think it might be good to vote with a full spectrum of choices on the > ball

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Lars Wirzenius dijo [Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:27:31AM +0300]: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:15:05PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private > >list archives" is repealed. > > If we're going to have an

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:27:31AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > * Whatever else people come up. Require that whoever starts a thread on -private that doesn't have [VAC] in the subject, explicitly states the privacy concerns on the message[1], and disclose accordingly. This could be implemented

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

* Gunnar Wolf , 2016-09-01, 23:15: === 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 paragraph 3 of the Debian

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:15:05PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. If we're going to have another discussion and vote about this, I think it might be good to vote with a full spe

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

o clarify the > meaning and implementation regarding the work of our delegates and the > powers of the DPL, and recognizing the historical value that could lie > within said list. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_002 > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2016/0

Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

, and recognizing the historical value that could lie within said list. [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_002 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2016/07/msg00108.html [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2016/07/msg00078.html In the process of the discussion, several people objected

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

elapsed, so I'm formally calling for vote on the resolution and amendment texts quoted below. As per discussions during the last general resolution: it would be nice if the Secretary could send a draft ballot to -vote for comments, before it is final. It would also be nice that already

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: It would also be nice that already suggested what the wording of the options should be. How about: 1) replace the two oldest members every year 2) replace the two oldest members every year, excluding resignations (Suggested by Lucas

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

confusing that descriptive. I've reread the proposals, and still can't tell which one is excluding resignations. How about: 1) replace the two oldest members every year (liberal) 2) replace the two oldest members every year (conservative) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/014a541e6c12-ea9c6f07-2fc2-4b82-9464-c01b5f86a23d-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: First draft: Looks quite good, but I'm unhappy about minor things. I propose the following more balanced (IMO) version: Both proposals aim at creating a

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

of resignations/removals from the required number of expiries, which could result in some TC members exceeding the term limit, in such events. Full ACK. Thanks. Since it's a little late now, I'll start the vote

Can option 2 allow one to stay a member forever? (Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte)

Hi, Le 16/12/2014 16:02, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : - 'Option 2' chooses to subtract the number of resignations/removals from the required number of expiries, which could result in some TC members exceeding the term limit, in such events. Thanks. Do I understand correctly that option 2

Re: Can option 2 allow one to stay a member forever? (Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte)

On 16/12/14 at 21:35 -0400, David Prévot wrote: Hi, Le 16/12/2014 16:02, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : - 'Option 2' chooses to subtract the number of resignations/removals from the required number of expiries, which could result in some TC members exceeding the term limit, in such

Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

will not be extended any further (unless the DPL intervenes). I currently intend to call for a vote when the minimum discussion period elapses, 2 weeks from now. That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'. $ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days' Sun Nov 2 13:59:16 GMT 2014 $ So

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

will not be extended any further (unless the DPL intervenes). I currently intend to call for a vote when the minimum discussion period elapses, 2 weeks from now. That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'. $ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days' Sun Nov 2 13:59:16 GMT

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

will not be extended any further (unless the DPL intervenes). I currently intend to call for a vote when the minimum discussion period elapses, 2 weeks from now. That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'. $ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days' Sun Nov 2 13

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100'. $ date -d 'Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 +14 days' Sun Nov

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: The last (and only) formal amendment I accepted was my own, on Sunday the 19th. It looks like you're right. Great

Can I vote?

Dear Debian friends, I am not a (registered) part of the team, so I can't vote for the proposal in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg1.html But, I'm an user with ~15 computers at the university and home, running 80% of them some Debian derivative (SolydXK, MiniNo, Ubuntu

Re: Can I vote?

Hello Gonzalo, Thank you for your email and your concerns and opinions. Let me re-assure you that our users and the free software are our highest priorities. However, to answer your question in the subject line, no, you cannot vote in this resolution as only Debian Members are allowed to vote

Re: Can I vote?

/ 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ

Re: [all candidates] vote time?

, questions, but certainly not because I'd merely like to see them discussed. Rather, it's because I haven't found answers to them in the candidates' platforms and my vote actually depends on how the candidates will both answer and approach them. I suspect others might be approaching the campaigning

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >