: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Can you tell me the purpose of your public vote apart from
manipulating other people with vote rights who might be
unsure yet about what they vote?
Kind regards
Nico
--
Nico Golde - http
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e
[ 2 ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre
[ 3 ] Choice 2: Raphael Hertzog
[ 1 ] Choice 3: Marc Brockschmidt
[ 4 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These
[ Please Cc me on replies, if any, I am not on -vote. ]
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi Manoj, I haven't yet got the ack for my vote but I guess I know the
reason. Do you use the pristine Debian keyring? If so, could you
please either refresh all keys
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, April 12th, 2008
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The details of the candidate platforms
UTC on Saturday, April 12th, 2008
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The details of the candidate platforms can be found at:
http
free adalt passwords
www 32action dot cn
superminis jackdaw
paternal prebattle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
in the resolution text, at least 1 /ol is missing or there is 1
unessential ol, and I'm not sure but it may also need to be checked
agains nested ol, ul and li.
Regards
--
.~.Nicolas Bertolissio
/V\[EMAIL PROTECTED]
// \\
/( )\
^`~'^ Debian GNU-Linux
signature.asc
Hi,
Vote page: http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002
Statistics: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_upload/
manoj
--
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Hassan I Sabbah
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093
(I'm not subscribed to debian-www, so if you trim this to exclude
-vote, please cc me)
At http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 I noticed that Raphaél's
name is written with the UTF-8 é, and the page itself defines the
charset to be ISO 8859-1. Is this an artefact of the WWW pages or
a simple
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 04:49:33PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
(I'm not subscribed to debian-www, so if you trim this to exclude
-vote, please cc me)
At http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 I noticed that Raphaél's
name is written with the UTF-8 é, and the page itself defines
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:30:35 +0100, Jens Seidel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The webpage is encoded in latin1 but this single file was encoded in
UTF-8.
Sorry about that. I just forgot that the page is not supposed
to be in utf-8. Is it going to be very hard to recode the vote pages
uploads should be allowed to perform
binary-only packages uploads for the same set of architectures.
---
so in accordance with Debian Constitution A.2, I am hereby calling for
vote.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large blue swirl
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:28:30 +0100, Bill Allombert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the
requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007,
Please provide the wording you want for the vote on
vote.debian.org, preferably in wml format
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Which issues would those be, then?
I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
three:
1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Which issues would those be, then?
I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
Not really. Messages like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
Not really. Messages like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html
consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen.
In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to
becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any
definition.
Probably, but I doubt it will be the last if this DPL continues.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not
synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b)
definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the
consensus was
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.31.0533 +0100]:
Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus.
Ah, if this is the misunderstanding: the infamous 80/20 rule
(Pareto's principle) in this case meant: 20% of the participants of
the discusionss make 80% of the noise.
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]:
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions
of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this
trouble is partly the DPL's fault.
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]:
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions
of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general
agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment
and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned
objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to
drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough
consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a
practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do
agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of
stronger
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]:
Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the
opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful.
This is not my impression. My impression is that there's
are part of
the rough rather than the consensus.
In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to
becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any
definition.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle
Given that there's no easy way to get at the arguments for an
against this vote, other than wading through hundreds of -vote
mails, I cannot cast a vote.
I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold
or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ 0 ] Choice 2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time
that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve
that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work.
Hey, you should have seconded my
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold
or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot
suggests:
It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL
decision
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not
subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can
see is that is available from the web archives. I can not
find anything about this, so personally I think
Hi
Thanks for pointing me to information about this vote. I obviously
missed some parts of the debian-vote list, as I thought that newest
was listed first.
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried
also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1211 +0100]:
Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of
time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to
resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to
work.
Hey, you should have
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]:
I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be,
but we'll see.
It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it
wasn't accepted.
0/0 was not accepted. Joey (Hess), was blank
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ 0 ] Choice 2
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect.
In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the
number of cast votes and thus makes
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect.
In voting systems
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1736 +0100]:
In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the
number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to
reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please
correct me if I am wrong
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:57:46 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as
effect.
In voting systems
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:41:26 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options
equal?
Yes, your name is recorded as someone who voted. Has no effect
on quorum or the outcome, though.
manoj
--
QOTD: I haven't
Where's the vote.debian.org page?
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:08:05 +0200, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Where's the vote.debian.org page?
It shall be put up when someone has time for it. The proposers
have not yet provided the wml for the vote page, nor their idea of
the ballot; I have a monday deadline
procedural vote to
determine if the Debian project Leaders decision to un-delegate policy
delegates remain on hold until the full vote is called, in accordance
with section 4.2.2.4 of the Debian constitution. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A,
Standard
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands
Hello,
The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under
vote [1] are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. Furthermore,
a consensual proposal has now reached enough seconds [2] to be put to vote,
and is much preferable, both in clearness of text as in actual
the current ballot,
we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion,
Why is this needed? Can't the new ballot be voted on anyway even if the
current one is already accepted?
As the vote is already underway (and the voting period almost finished), it
seems that this call for recasting votes *could* have
Le ven 13 octobre 2006 16:13, Sven Luther a écrit :
we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion,
and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better
solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of
Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example
solution, and since it is not
possible anymore to amend the current ballot,
we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion,
Why is this needed? Can't the new ballot be voted on anyway even if the
current one is already accepted?
Not with the current wording, accordying to Manoj. If Choice
On Friday 13 October 2006 17:30, Sven Luther wrote:
And how much of that is directly correlated to your anti-sven campaign ?
The mail is completely neutral and does not contain any negative or personal
remark. And still you are able to interpret it as a personal attack?
Well, ok, let me make
This is to record the reason behind my firmware GR vote
(not that you are expected to mind what I think, but I
wish to go on record at vote time anyway). Debian
should in my view treat firmware differently than other
software. Although this does not necessarily mean that
Debian should distribute
Le jeudi 12 octobre 2006 à 14:23 +, Thaddeus H. Black a écrit :
Choice 2 ranks below Further Discussion mostly because I
am not yet sure that granting kernel upstream a
permanent special privilege the DFSG denies other
upstream developers is prudent in the long term.
I think you are
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:23:05PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
This is to record the reason behind my firmware GR vote
(not that you are expected to mind what I think, but I
wish to go on record at vote time anyway). Debian
should in my view treat firmware differently than other
software
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the vote
keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the key. This
sometimes gives me a message like 'processed: 0, imported: 1'. When I
then try to use a key
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:17:25 -0500, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the
vote keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the
key. This sometimes gives me
Hello,
I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the vote
keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the key. This
sometimes gives me a message like 'processed: 0, imported: 1'. When I
then try to use a key like [EMAIL PROTECTED], gpg tells me
that it doesn't find
to http://vote.debian.org/, or indeed, any pages of
previous vote, show a navigation bar that highlights current votes;
so this should not have been hard to find.
manoj
--
A newspaper is a circulating library with high blood pressure. Arthure
Bugs Baer
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED
* issue a call for votes unless they are
the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the
ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my
knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote
has suggested.
During weeks, you have resisted bringing
calling for a vote
has suggested.
Maybe, but Manoj wearing a double hat on this, is troublesome.
During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from
frank to vote,
Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank
wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 01:21]:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge
checking the constitution before posting noise? (We can't
recall the secretary, but maybe can reverse the DPL decision part of
their appointment, AFAICT.)
During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to
vote, and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a
draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
--
,''`.
: :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `' http://people.debian.org
This one time, at band camp, Romain Francoise said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a
draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
The constitution doesn't say it has to, so
Hi,
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that
this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. For operational
reasons, I have decided to start and end the vote in the middle of the
weekend (I am not able to guarantee being able to meet a schedule
during
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this
is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started.
Will this vote have secret ballots?
No, I
Hi list masters and DPL,
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time as he is able to discuss issues
Sven Luther wrote:
Hi list masters and DPL,
Hi Sven
Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this
discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a
time
ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until
such a
time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to
ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly
disguised form.
Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Just for information.
This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo (already
re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further discuss the issue, but
in all cases, nothing will prevent further discussion
officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until
such a
time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to
ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly
disguised form.
Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring
the precedent of my ban from -release on similar
issues,
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until
such a
time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to
ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a
slightly
Just for information.
This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo
(already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further
discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further
discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he
Err,
I didn't want to join this ugly subthread. But I do.
Sven has earned quite some points in this list for trying to argue to
the point. No matter whether he was wrong (nobody has really shown
that?). Now his whining and the post to d-d-a has nearly emptied his
account. However...
Luk
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:19:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this
is a draft ballot, voting has
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:24:34PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Just for information.
This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo
(already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further
discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:41:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
their body by banning
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated for proposals, sponsors, amendments,
calls for votes and other
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's amendment as accepted
Hi,
With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the
firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,8th October 2006
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 14th October 2006
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:27:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote,
As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer
may post to the list designated
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the
firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started.
Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your
recall as secretary
(and with a flamewarlet on the editorial GR in it, too, for
added fun - see KDE #96997 [*]), with various references to the other
threads which have done the same: No, it has not clarified things to me. I
guess I will either abstain or vote further discussion for the forseeable
future.
Has delegating
Hi,
I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution.
As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we
agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods
to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1].
Of course, the voting period in the WML file
Hi,
This is a call for a vote on the General Resolution: Re-affirm support
to the Debian Project Leader.
The proposed ballot is:
[ ] Re-affirm DPL; wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank
[ ] Re-affirm DPL; do not endorse nor support his other projects
[ ] Further
Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
Hi,
This is a call for a vote on the General Resolution: Re-affirm support
to the Debian Project Leader.
The proposed ballot is:
[ ] Re-affirm DPL; wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank
[ ] Re-affirm DPL
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution.
As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we
agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods
to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1].
I confirm
Hi,
The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that
this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. For operational
reasons, I have decided to start and end the vote in the middle of the
weekend (I am not able to guarantee being able to meet a schedule
during
stand, and thus it is rather urgent
to send it out to debian-vote or elsewhere, once it is confirmed, and then a
GR needs to be coined to reflect our position, since both Frederik's original
GR and Manoj's one lack a bit of clarity, which is not the case of your draft.
For those interested
Sven Luther wrote:
Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than
most GRs out there.
One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
is somewhat strange.
Regards,
Joey
--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with
the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the
d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here).
While we were discussing that,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The Editorial amendments to SC GR was not a null operation; it quite
clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on
-vote at the time, with AJ
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion
with
the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team,
the
d-i
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote with
all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are
apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR
2006/004 being the first) with only
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Editorial amendments to SC GR was not a null operation; it quite
clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
works distributed in main.
Adjective holy misplacement, Batman! Rather, it changed the social
contract to make the DFSG
in main. This was rather laboriously
discussed on -vote at the time, with AJ (then the RM) heavily
involved.[1] It was a large number of people's understanding that
this was what the SC originally intended, but this view was not
universally held, which was why the GR was necessary.
For the editorial
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was
included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you
did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds
like the person doing the misleading
to vote with -- sounds
like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy.
In that particular case, the heading was still editorial
changes,
Because I believed that to be true, yes.
and given the public cries that the results (not the voting results)
gave, he was not alone
_then_,
I have no idea; I just got my account when the editorial changes GR was
put to vote, I think, and didn't take part since I didn't feel
qualified.
rahter than bitching after the fact
and implying I misled people by choosing that heading?
I guess people did that back then, but I didn't hear
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Yodel!
With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares:
I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of
mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made
501 - 600 of 1547 matches
Mail list logo
