Re: Vote Tallied
The message appears to have been sent twice. It's certainly saved twice in the email archive. The message IDs, dates, and such are all identical but I think this would be the relevent part of the header: Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4023CDC6E; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:20:07 +0100 (CET) ^^^ and Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4067EDC6E; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:54:03 +0100 (CET) ^^^ On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:46:49AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:20:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 02:58:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I didn't receive a second confirmation; Me neither, and I have not re-voted. AOL what branden said /AOL Well I got it, but I got it twice?! One from "Fri Mar 23 08:21:47 2001" and one from "Fri Mar 23 08:27:30 2001". The text in the mail is exact the same. Bye, - -- Alain -- - PS: I just voted once. -- For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
You also have multiple copies saved in the archive. Everyone will recieve one of these emails for each ballot they sent in. On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:38:02PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: Well I got it, but I got it twice?! One from "Fri Mar 23 08:21:47 2001" and one from "Fri Mar 23 08:27:30 2001". The text in the mail is exact the same. I hope this is not a problem. I received four new identical "Vote Tallied". :) -- Christian Surchi | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.firenze.linux.it -- Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
The message appears to have been sent twice. It's certainly saved twice in the email archive. The message IDs, dates, and such are all identical but I think this would be the relevent part of the header: Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4023CDC6E; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:20:07 +0100 (CET) ^^^ and Received: by butterfly.home.parkautomat.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4067EDC6E; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:54:03 +0100 (CET) ^^^ On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 09:46:49AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:20:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 02:58:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I didn't receive a second confirmation; Me neither, and I have not re-voted. AOL what branden said /AOL Well I got it, but I got it twice?! One from Fri Mar 23 08:21:47 2001 and one from Fri Mar 23 08:27:30 2001. The text in the mail is exact the same. Bye, - -- Alain -- - PS: I just voted once. -- For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpLNAYQY6mfD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
You also have multiple copies saved in the archive. Everyone will recieve one of these emails for each ballot they sent in. On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:38:02PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Alain Schroeder wrote: Well I got it, but I got it twice?! One from Fri Mar 23 08:21:47 2001 and one from Fri Mar 23 08:27:30 2001. The text in the mail is exact the same. I hope this is not a problem. I received four new identical Vote Tallied. :) -- Christian Surchi | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.firenze.linux.it -- Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpp3mMRh3FZC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, thanks :) I'm on my way to test... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:11:25PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote: Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... I don't actually know with exim. You should test it in your home directory and see what works. a-w might do it without bouncing. Jason -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpfvWMia0Ldd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:41:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Sorry, I pulled a long night yesterday. My schedule will be a lot saner next week. Anyways, looks like you've already announced it. Just go ahead. Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:10:54PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ballot box through the process. Raul: call me as soon as you are ready Culus: What are the permissions I need to set the .forward file to, to get exim to hold the mail and not processa and not bounce it? Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, thanks :) I'm on my way to test... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:11:25PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Darren O. Benham wrote: Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... I don't actually know with exim. You should test it in your home directory and see what works. a-w might do it without bouncing. Jason -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ko... as soon as I get Jason's response... On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:41:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Sorry, I pulled a long night yesterday. My schedule will be a lot saner next week. Anyways, looks like you've already announced it. Just go ahead. Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:10:54PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that errors won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ballot box through the process. Raul: call me as soon as you are ready Culus: What are the permissions I need to set the .forward file to, to get exim to hold the mail and not processa and not bounce it? Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpH1SmvnJrq9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that "errors" won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ballot box through the process. Raul: call me as soon as you are ready Culus: What are the permissions I need to set the .forward file to, to get exim to hold the mail and not processa and not bounce it? Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, the reprocessor is ready. I made a few changes so that errors won't get resent.. just valid responses... Since you are running the vote, please announce that the reprocessing of ballots is about to start. Since the mailbox is still chmod me.. I'll have to do the actual running of the ballot box through the process. Raul: call me as soon as you are ready Culus: What are the permissions I need to set the .forward file to, to get exim to hold the mail and not processa and not bounce it? Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgp3nT7eo67iI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) (writing this last but...) The fact the the number of characters do not match the number of choices. if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. I acutally hope not. I tried pretty hard to make the description choices transparent. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Right.. so in Sven's question.. there was nothing signifying the blank vote. -1234 or 1234- would be necessary. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: how can we know it is wrong (well know for sure, as different from having the suspision ?) (writing this last but...) The fact the the number of characters do not match the number of choices. if the ballot is listed as 1234 for example, does this correspond to voting for all 4 candidates and not having filled the further discution, or does it correspond to having voted for everyone except the first candidate. Or should it have been a ballot of -1234 or 1234- ? Anyway, i guess my ballot was also wrongly acounted, but i will wait for the second confirmation now, ... Any confirmation that doesn't have five positions is tallied incorrectly. In retrospect, I should have used A, B, C, D, and E for the ballot options. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that I had. I acutally hope not. I tried pretty hard to make the description choices transparent. If you voted ACED (A first, C second, E third, D fourth) on an ABCDE ballot, your confirmation should say: 1-243 That is, the numbers indicate your ranking of each option, with options indicated by position. Right.. so in Sven's question.. there was nothing signifying the blank vote. -1234 or 1234- would be necessary. Also, I've [belatedly] found out that debvote is a debian package. You can pull down a copy of the package, read the docs for yourself etc. etc. [Let me tell you: reading the docs is a lot easier than trying to figure out how it works by reading the code when you're not even quite sure which files are relevant.] Thanks, -- Raul -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpYzssfy43rP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Oh man :( Those dashes were important!! On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote: Your ballot has been received and tallied. -- Name: Anthony Towns Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Id: ajt Ballot: 4213 (So much for anonymous voting, but anyway) Actually, my ballot was 4-213. Something's broken. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, I fixed that part of the code. All future votes will be tallied correctly. The entire ballot box is saved. Shortly, I'll run the mails through the vote-take script again. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who has voted will receive a SECOND confirmation in the next couple of days. If the second confirmation is STILL wrong, please let us know. Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote: Your ballot has been received and tallied. -- Name: Anthony Towns Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Id: ajt Ballot: 4213 (So much for anonymous voting, but anyway) Actually, my ballot was 4-213. Something's broken. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Oh man :( Those dashes were important!! On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote: Your ballot has been received and tallied. -- Name: Anthony Towns Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Id: ajt Ballot: 4213 (So much for anonymous voting, but anyway) Actually, my ballot was 4-213. Something's broken. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpCMwtt8rX0j.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote Tallied
Ok, I fixed that part of the code. All future votes will be tallied correctly. The entire ballot box is saved. Shortly, I'll run the mails through the vote-take script again. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who has voted will receive a SECOND confirmation in the next couple of days. If the second confirmation is STILL wrong, please let us know. Darren On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:33:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote: Your ballot has been received and tallied. -- Name: Anthony Towns Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Id: ajt Ballot: 4213 (So much for anonymous voting, but anyway) Actually, my ballot was 4-213. Something's broken. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpR23CZZZIqf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FYI -- vote administrivia
Yea... they ended up in my mail box :/ Darren On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Acknowledgements were not sent for ballots submitted during the first (approximately) five hours after the CFV announcement. If you sent in a vote and did not get an acknowledgement for it, please re-send your vote, to be safe. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI -- vote administrivia
Yea... they ended up in my mail box :/ Darren On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Acknowledgements were not sent for ballots submitted during the first (approximately) five hours after the CFV announcement. If you sent in a vote and did not get an acknowledgement for it, please re-send your vote, to be safe. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
Re: Nomination
Please GPG sign your nomination... Darren On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 07:01:52PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: With this message, I publicly announce my intention to seek election as the next Debian Project Leader. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: Nomination for Debian Project Leader (DPL)
Please GPG sign this nomination... Darren On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:35:11AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: I intend to run for DPL this year. I also am available for questioning on OpenProjects in #debian and other channels. I'm happy to answer questions via email as well. Like others running for DPL I'd rather wait until all nominations are in before I start `campaigning'. Thanks, Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, If this goes on -- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpNhmQt1RCvP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Nomination
Please GPG sign your nomination... Darren On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 07:01:52PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: With this message, I publicly announce my intention to seek election as the next Debian Project Leader. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpGgHIihKMr7.pgp Description: PGP signature
expiry announcement
My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a
form that will hopefully be clear to all.
*** SNIP HERE ***
Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General
Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have
expired. The recent vote was conducted in error, and its ballots are
hereby voided and the results have not been tabulated.
The entirety of section A.5 reads as follows:
If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted
on or otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks then it is considered to have been
withdrawn.
See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
The current Project Secretary has long regarded debian-vote as the only
mailing list or forum in which consitutional activity of this sort is
recognized. Quoting http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal:
When you've completed your proposal, send it to the debian-vote mailing
list or directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (who will bounce it to -vote
anyway). Proposals will not be recognized to any other mailing list or
email address. This is to prevent the Project Secretary from missing a
proposal in the huge volumes of mail generaged on some of our lists and to
prevent him from having to subscribe to each and every list created by the
Project. Sponsors must also be sent to the debian-vote list or to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to be recognized as valid.
The following factual review supports the finding of expiry:
* John Goerzen's General Resolution saw a Call for Votes on 7 June.
* Anthony Towns's amendement saw a Call for Votes on 7 July.
* Both the General Resolution and the amendment were discussed heavily on
debian-vote through the month of June and into early July, after which
discussion was sporadic. The last message in July that was even modestly
germane to the proposals was made by Hamish Moffatt on 19 Jul
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
* From 27 July to 23 August, there was no traffic on -vote at all.
* The only messages in August had to do not with the subject matter of the
General Resolution, but rather when we were ever going to have a vote on
them.
* The list fell into silence again, broken by a message from the Project
Secretary on 22 September.
The smallest estimate of downtime is 20 July to 22 August, a period of 34
days.
There are larger estimates of downtime that would disregard extremely
marginal posts made to -vote.
It may be helpful to refer to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0006/maillist.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0007/maillist.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0008/maillist.html
to confirm this representation of the factual record.
*** SNIP HERE ***
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
* http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Debian: Software in the Public Interest: *
* Project Secretary Treasurer *
* Webmaster Team *
* BTS Team siteROCK: *
* Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
PGP signature
expiry announcement
My gratitude to Branden Robinson for help in constructing this message in a form that will hopefully be clear to all. *** SNIP HERE *** Per section A.5 (Expiry) of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have expired. The recent vote was conducted in error, and its ballots are hereby voided and the results have not been tabulated. The entirety of section A.5 reads as follows: If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks then it is considered to have been withdrawn. See http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. The current Project Secretary has long regarded debian-vote as the only mailing list or forum in which consitutional activity of this sort is recognized. Quoting http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal: When you've completed your proposal, send it to the debian-vote mailing list or directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (who will bounce it to -vote anyway). Proposals will not be recognized to any other mailing list or email address. This is to prevent the Project Secretary from missing a proposal in the huge volumes of mail generaged on some of our lists and to prevent him from having to subscribe to each and every list created by the Project. Sponsors must also be sent to the debian-vote list or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to be recognized as valid. The following factual review supports the finding of expiry: * John Goerzen's General Resolution saw a Call for Votes on 7 June. * Anthony Towns's amendement saw a Call for Votes on 7 July. * Both the General Resolution and the amendment were discussed heavily on debian-vote through the month of June and into early July, after which discussion was sporadic. The last message in July that was even modestly germane to the proposals was made by Hamish Moffatt on 19 Jul [EMAIL PROTECTED]. * From 27 July to 23 August, there was no traffic on -vote at all. * The only messages in August had to do not with the subject matter of the General Resolution, but rather when we were ever going to have a vote on them. * The list fell into silence again, broken by a message from the Project Secretary on 22 September. The smallest estimate of downtime is 20 July to 22 August, a period of 34 days. There are larger estimates of downtime that would disregard extremely marginal posts made to -vote. It may be helpful to refer to http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0006/maillist.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0007/maillist.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0008/maillist.html to confirm this representation of the factual record. *** SNIP HERE *** -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpJERIbNUc9s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Status of Proposals
There are two standing proposals that I know of. If something hasn't been done (I believe either Manoj or Overfiend are on vacation or recently came back from), I'd like to clearify. I had a conversation with Overfiend last week and was informed (unofficially, unfortunatly) that he and Manoj came to an agreement to scrap the current propsoals and come up with a joint set of proposals to vote on. I have asked Overfiend to announce this to the lists. I am back on active status. October 30th, I started a new job that will allow me more time to spend on Debian. Infact, my lack of time for Debian was part of the reason for seeking new employment. I have spoken with Wichert, seeking his opinion and he mentioned he'd like me to continue in this position. We lost a GR to expiration when I failed to post a ballot within a specified time limit and others in the project failed to fill in in my abence. In order prevent this in the future, I plan on conducting the next vote (be it the current proposals, unwithdrawn; or the new combined set of proposals) in conjunction with the Technical Committee Chairman so that he is better prepared to step in should the need arise. I am also seeking an partner to run all Secretary corrosponance, including ballots, through and can, also, be trained in everything. The constitution doesn't directly allow this person to fill in for undelegated decisions but, being trained, they can assist the Technical Committee Chairman and/or the Project Leader. Please understand that volunteering for such a position can open you up to unpleasentness. Debian can be tough on people in the spotlight. Until then... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpswIvSng2kd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I received another good suggestion via private email. On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote: What would you like to see? Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit a ballot written like that. Personally, it isn't clear from your ballot that this was the goal, or how I could arrive at that goal. What I expect to see in a ballot is a clear description of exactly what is being decided by the vote, and how marking an item on the ballot will declare my choice. What choices were you offering on the ballot you submitted? Some clever people seem to have figured it out, but even with their suggestions it isn't clear to me that this was your intention. Waiting is, On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to know how to mark the ballot either, although there is plenty of opinion about what the ballot "means". It is unclear what is actually being voted upon. I see that CHOICE 1 is "associated" with item 1 on the ballot which says simply "Yes". Does a mark here mean that I agree with CHOICE 1? Also CHOICE 2 is said to be associated with item 2 on the ballot, which simply says "No". Does a mark here mean that I do _not_ want CHOICE 2? It is my understanding, from my own reading of the Debian Constitution that the secretary decides how the vote will be structured and will produce a ballot. Since it isn't clear what I am being asked to vote for or against, this latest attempt by the Secretary seems to fall short of a ballot. Since I can't figure out what the vote is about, I can't produce a completed ballot, so I have no choice but to refuse to vote. I hope there are at least 20 other developers as confused as I am, so we have the required number of "Developers" to block any action resulting from this ... vague ballot. While there _is_ an indication that there is a second ballot, there is no indication of what is being decided by the content of the first, so I don't see how a second ballot can clear up my confusion. Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote
I admit that that ballot was unclear :( I did like Mr. Buck's ballot and I received another good suggestion via private email. On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Darren O. Benham wrote: What would you like to see? Well, if you are trying to get a vote on whether or not to apply Anthony Towns' ammendment, then the example ballot suggested by Buddha Buck is a clear statement of what is being voted upon, and I could certainly submit a ballot written like that. Personally, it isn't clear from your ballot that this was the goal, or how I could arrive at that goal. What I expect to see in a ballot is a clear description of exactly what is being decided by the vote, and how marking an item on the ballot will declare my choice. What choices were you offering on the ballot you submitted? Some clever people seem to have figured it out, but even with their suggestions it isn't clear to me that this was your intention. Waiting is, On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to know how to mark the ballot either, although there is plenty of opinion about what the ballot means. It is unclear what is actually being voted upon. I see that CHOICE 1 is associated with item 1 on the ballot which says simply Yes. Does a mark here mean that I agree with CHOICE 1? Also CHOICE 2 is said to be associated with item 2 on the ballot, which simply says No. Does a mark here mean that I do _not_ want CHOICE 2? It is my understanding, from my own reading of the Debian Constitution that the secretary decides how the vote will be structured and will produce a ballot. Since it isn't clear what I am being asked to vote for or against, this latest attempt by the Secretary seems to fall short of a ballot. Since I can't figure out what the vote is about, I can't produce a completed ballot, so I have no choice but to refuse to vote. I hope there are at least 20 other developers as confused as I am, so we have the required number of Developers to block any action resulting from this ... vague ballot. While there _is_ an indication that there is a second ballot, there is no indication of what is being decided by the content of the first, so I don't see how a second ballot can clear up my confusion. Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgprLgvSkk9kS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. First, I'm sure you mean "any list other than debian-vote" since that's the list we're talking about. I do this so that the developers don't have to subscribe to EVERY list looking for proposals and discussions and sponsors and such. For example, I am not subscribed to -project so I have never seen the proposal originally made there. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. This, again, is mostly a time-saving issue. The one time I can think of where I was having problems, mutt wasn't verifying the signatures properly for me. As a matter of proceedure, I'd rather not have to jump through hoops to verify every signature. Especially since, as time goes on, more and more of this is getting scripted. And that, scripted, is really the key reason. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. As this progresses, I would like to talk to you two... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. First, I'm sure you mean any list other than debian-vote since that's the list we're talking about. I do this so that the developers don't have to subscribe to EVERY list looking for proposals and discussions and sponsors and such. For example, I am not subscribed to -project so I have never seen the proposal originally made there. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. This, again, is mostly a time-saving issue. The one time I can think of where I was having problems, mutt wasn't verifying the signatures properly for me. As a matter of proceedure, I'd rather not have to jump through hoops to verify every signature. Especially since, as time goes on, more and more of this is getting scripted. And that, scripted, is really the key reason. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. As this progresses, I would like to talk to you two...
Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment
You are absolutly correct and did a better job explaining it (on both accounts). Thank you! On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:51:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: You can vote either way here without liking the one you vote for today. For example, you might think both are horrible ideas, but think John's is certain not to pass but Anthony's might. In that case, you would vote not to accept the amendment, and then vote NO on the second ballot no matter what. so we will see a second ballot? that explains a lot! :) I do believe so, though I have asked the Secretary for a clarification. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote
What would you like to see? On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The '[BALLOT] Social Contract Change' message was completely confusing. I have listened to the discussion on the list, and no one there seems to know how to mark the ballot either, although there is plenty of opinion about what the ballot means. It is unclear what is actually being voted upon. I see that CHOICE 1 is associated with item 1 on the ballot which says simply Yes. Does a mark here mean that I agree with CHOICE 1? Also CHOICE 2 is said to be associated with item 2 on the ballot, which simply says No. Does a mark here mean that I do _not_ want CHOICE 2? It is my understanding, from my own reading of the Debian Constitution that the secretary decides how the vote will be structured and will produce a ballot. Since it isn't clear what I am being asked to vote for or against, this latest attempt by the Secretary seems to fall short of a ballot. Since I can't figure out what the vote is about, I can't produce a completed ballot, so I have no choice but to refuse to vote. I hope there are at least 20 other developers as confused as I am, so we have the required number of Developers to block any action resulting from this ... vague ballot. While there _is_ an indication that there is a second ballot, there is no indication of what is being decided by the content of the first, so I don't see how a second ballot can clear up my confusion. Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpr70KMbDS0x.pgp Description: PGP signature
Non-free Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I want to apologize for "disappearing". Originally I was allowed time from work to perform Debian duties. I have taken steps to correct the lack of time that will, shortly, be announced. :) In the mean time, please forgive my lapse. Here is what I found after reading the volumes of email and discussing the issue. Due to my lapse, I will wait one more week before sending out the first ballot. I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themselves with the issue again. I am going to assume that another flame^H^H^H^H^Hdebate will occur, this seems to be they way Debian likes to talk about things but to my way of thinking, it's the original discussion that is important. The "debates" tend to have no significant contributions. - WHEREAS, The Debian Constitution is a very important document to Debian. The Social Contract and DFSG are as important or even more important than the Constitution. Because of its importance, the Social Contract can not be left to the General Resolution methods for change. The intent of the Constitution was to protect key elements of Debian as well as provide a structured method for conflict resolution and change. The framers of the Constitution did not directly name the Social Contract to prevent it's change but the Social Contract can not be treated as lesser than the Constitution. THEREFORE, Since the proposed amendment introduced in the email archived at: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00018.html And seconded by these messages: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00031.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00035.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00039.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00037.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00038.html changes the text of the original proposal found at http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg0.html and seconded by: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg5.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00013.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00056.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00019.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00011.html We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or the Important Documents (constitution) quorum. Darren Benham Project Secretary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5y99Gbbwt//gBAIoRApB2AKCFd6ZVpZdV3OeGKL5GxNBHn2S5VgCfSdLB uYxxTxSVRuXHPdiQQ8KO+c0= =J14p -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Non-free Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I want to apologize for disappearing. Originally I was allowed time from work to perform Debian duties. I have taken steps to correct the lack of time that will, shortly, be announced. :) In the mean time, please forgive my lapse. Here is what I found after reading the volumes of email and discussing the issue. Due to my lapse, I will wait one more week before sending out the first ballot. I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themselves with the issue again. I am going to assume that another flame^H^H^H^H^Hdebate will occur, this seems to be they way Debian likes to talk about things but to my way of thinking, it's the original discussion that is important. The debates tend to have no significant contributions. - WHEREAS, The Debian Constitution is a very important document to Debian. The Social Contract and DFSG are as important or even more important than the Constitution. Because of its importance, the Social Contract can not be left to the General Resolution methods for change. The intent of the Constitution was to protect key elements of Debian as well as provide a structured method for conflict resolution and change. The framers of the Constitution did not directly name the Social Contract to prevent it's change but the Social Contract can not be treated as lesser than the Constitution. THEREFORE, Since the proposed amendment introduced in the email archived at: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00018.html And seconded by these messages: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00031.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00035.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00039.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00037.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00038.html changes the text of the original proposal found at http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg0.html and seconded by: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg5.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00013.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00056.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00019.html http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00011.html We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or the Important Documents (constitution) quorum. Darren Benham Project Secretary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5y99Gbbwt//gBAIoRApB2AKCFd6ZVpZdV3OeGKL5GxNBHn2S5VgCfSdLB uYxxTxSVRuXHPdiQQ8KO+c0= =J14p -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 04:05:30PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote: On Sat, June 10, 2000 10:00 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: Now follows a dissertation on the voting system: [...] Thanks for the primer; this was quite possibly the most useful message in this entire thread. Except that Chris Lawrence is mistaken as to how Condorcet's method is implemented within the Debian Project. Yesterday he wrote: Chris is not mistaken. pgp3SO3XsZ9MF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Parliamentary Questions...
Just a quick note.. as many people know, my wife just had a baby by C-Section so I'm a little preoccupied until life returns to a more normal routine. I will be back at work on Monday and I will assess the status of Mr. Goerzen's proposal and Mr. Townes amendment. My assumption from browsing the list is that both issues have been sponsored appropriately and are in the middle of their two week discussion period. Also, I do not see any of the discussion periods ending before I get to work. On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:24:17AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: 1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and the amendment have had various developers post seconds to them. The web site http://www.debian.org/vote does not list the proposal or amendment yet. What is the current parliamentary status of the proposal by John Goetzen and the amendment by Anthony Townes? See above. 2. The proposal by John Goetzen calls for a modification of the Debian Social Contract. Some have suggested that such a modification is allowed by Clause 4.1.5 of the Debian Constitution (Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements), while others claim that that particular clause does not apply to amending the Social Contract -- and that there is no Constitutionally valid method of amending the Social Contract. It has also been suggested that amending the DSC is equivilant to amending the Debian Constitution, and thus falls under 4.1.2, and requires a 3:1 supermajority. As far as I have seen, most are agreed that the Project Secretary's opinion should decide. What Constitutional authority, if any, is there for amending the Social Contract? What level of majority or supermajority is needed to enact an amendment to the Debian Social Contract? Oh boy, this will be fun. I will have to look at the issues closely and will not venture an official answer at this time. 3. If the original proposal requires a supermajority and the amendment (which does not amend the DSC) requires only a majority, how will the vote counting and determination of the results of the ballots be done? Per section A of the constitution :) The answer to this will, obviously, have to wait for a determination of point 2. I hope to receive a reply to these questions soon. Please wait a bit longer, I will be back into circulation Monday. Thank you, Buddha Buck -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what would be gained. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: [snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods] If members of debian want to perfect their voting system, then I suggest changing the count rule, the circular tie solution to SD, or, especially, SSD or Tideman. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.
I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what were suggested without going through the formal change process for the constitution. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same set of ballots. I agree with Branden. It would be good if Darren codified the exact current vote counting system and we made that the authoritative measure. I don't think this would need updating the constitution or the like.. Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * PGP signature
Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.
In the end, it takes a lot to change our constitution and I fail to see what would be gained. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 01:36:43AM +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: [snipped an interesting and long discussion on voting methods] If members of debian want to perfect their voting system, then I suggest changing the count rule, the circular tie solution to SD, or, especially, SSD or Tideman. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
Re: It isn't quite Condorcet's method.
I could rediscribe the method but I couldn't make changes as large as what were suggested without going through the formal change process for the constitution. On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:27:43PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: I should point out that leaving this issue unresolved makes it possible for people to raise a legitimate challenge to our voting procedure, since the present description avails itself of multiple interpretations of the same set of ballots. I agree with Branden. It would be good if Darren codified the exact current vote counting system and we made that the authoritative measure. I don't think this would need updating the constitution or the like.. Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpZr0xpjbnfQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:56:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:49:03AM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: Not so.. the call for vote can only come from the proposer or one of the sponsors. (A.2.1) I think it's a terminology confusion thing: the proponent has to request a vote, but normally the CFV is the thing that contains the ballot paper and whatnot. Am I right in thinking that needs to come from you? Part of the terminology comes from the constitution which states (sic) that the proposer or one of the seconds can call for vote at any time after the discussion period has ended. The person can state what they think the ballot should say but final ballot and it's wording will come from the Project Secretary. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpzB7pTCVwpt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
I suppose it's important to point out that I, as secretary, havn't seen any sponsorships. The archives for debian-vote show only the proposal and one objection and this email. Note, the webpage doesn't seem to have been updated yet but the real archive is at /debian2/web/lists on master. On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 03:36:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION Having met the requirement for introduction, this is a formal call for votes as per section 4.2.1 of the Debian Constitution. Only the project secretary can call for votes, see appendix A. Not so.. the call for vote can only come from the proposer or one of the sponsors. (A.2.1) Other procedural matters: I'm also weirded out by the last sentence of A.3.1: ``No quorum is required for an ammendment''. What does this mean? If I propose and gain seconds for an ammendment to John's resolution, do I not need anyone else to vote for it to succeed, whereas John would? Or does it only apply to the Which form will the resolution take? vote, and not the Shall it be resolved that... [Yes] [No] vote? A.6.8 states (sic) that if no quorum is required it means a simple majority (effectivly a quorum of 1) is needed. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpcVGgZK4opu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION Proposed by: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seconds: Stephen R. Gore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Per Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having met the requirement for introduction, this is a formal call for votes as per section 4.2.1 of the Debian Constitution. Incorrect. Please see the first line of the second paragraph at http://vote.debian.org/howto_proposal. (John, this is not directed at you but since this going to public lists and many people on one of these public lists have problems thinking before flaming) This web page has been up almost as long as the constitution and can also be seen at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal. Also, this is NOT written specificly in the constitution but is a proceedural issue that IS covered in section 4.2.5 of the constitution. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpCGTHMCAJdC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 04:47:35PM -0300, Lalo Martins wrote: (sorry for cross-posting to -devel-announce, but I think the answer to this is important enought to be posted there) On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 06:40:53PM -, Debian Project Secretary wrote: For anyone who might have misunderstood the last ballot. The election has started. Please vote. The last ballot was sent to the appropriate lists and was not recalled. Even with typos in the introduction, the ballot (the part between the dont' delete lines) was valid. In short: these that already voted, already voted, or must we vote again? Those who've already voted and gotten an ack back.. have already voted. There is no need to vote again unless you want to change your vote. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer *
Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup
It uses gpg... pgp was used in the generic sense... On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:32:15AM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: If I remember the text of the ballot, it asked for pgp keys. It said nothing about gpg. Since I can't vote in the thing, I didn't email the fellow running it, and ask about pgp/gpg. But I thought about it. :) * John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000228 08:08]: What is up with this? Does key refer to my GPG key? If so, I signed it with a key that IS in the keyring: -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpPt87XYyW5g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup
I'm beginning to think I'm using an old keyring... On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:22:52AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Darren O. Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The key you used was not in the keyring that the vote system used... -k ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg:~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.pgp And the keyrings are coming from dinstall (unless the archive maintainers moved them on me...) But, I've been uploading packages signed with this key for weeks now, at least, and they've all been dealt with successfully. No problems. All of my packages and all of the Alpha autobuilder's are signed with this key, and they've been installed. -- John -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpP751OA7n0A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [secretary@debian.org] Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup
On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:10:40AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: What is up with this? Does key refer to my GPG key? If so, I signed it with a key that IS in the keyring: pub 1024D/8A1D9A1F 2000-01-30 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] sub 4096g/D74C643B 2000-01-30 Other than that, I simply replied to the message in -vote as per instructions. What is wrong? Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [216.234.231.5]) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AD683B92B for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:08:11 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 32304 invoked by uid 1227); 28 Feb 2000 16:07:52 - Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:07:52 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Vote Mail failed: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Hello! Your ballot to the vote system is malformed, or an internal processing error occured. The information below may help you, or the vote administrator to identify the problem. Error: An error occured while performing the LDAP lookup == Message Error: Key not found Python Stack Trace: ? /org/vote.debian.org/bin2/gpgwrapper:176: CheckLDAP(Res[2][1]); CheckLDAP /org/vote.debian.org/bin2/gpgwrapper:94: raise Error, Key not found I'd say^ The key you used was not in the keyring that the vote system used... -k ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg:~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.pgp And the keyrings are coming from dinstall (unless the archive maintainers moved them on me...) Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you have any questions. -- John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org | + The 72,612,487th prime number is 1,455,383,921. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgp4qUEaaqQWu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Debian Project Secretary wrote: CALL FOR VOTES (2 of 2) `2 of 2' ? Ballot #1 was a test ballot... and should have been reset. Heck, I'm thinking we need three ballots anyway. I have no idea what we'll do when we get to (3 of 2) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpK6Vb4K7Elf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BALLOT] Leader Election 2000
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:39:31PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 05:14:29PM +, Jules Bean wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:40:38AM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote: Ballot #1 was a test ballot... and should have been reset. Like hell it was.. Ballot #1 was the cabal ballot where you chose the new leader. Ballot 2 is the fake one to keep us all tamed. Sheesh... that means I'm still not in the Cabal. I must have been talking to people who were only PRETENDING to be the Cabal. Anyway, there's another error: Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you use 8 for your last choice. You may leave choices you consider 8? There are 5 choices :) Who are the hidden 3 candidates? heck if I know.. I just woke up one night with a bright light shining in my eyes telling me that I had to add three hidden options to the ballot and if I didn't, my cat would not suffer any accidents... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian TeamLinux Infrastructure Engineer * pgpuO8nsCDnFm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ITS
You intention to run must be signed with the GPG key matching your developer's key in the Debian keyring. On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:15:04PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: Hi, Just a brief note informing you of my intention to stand for election as Debian Project Leader. A full platform will be forthcoming shortly. Regards, Matthew Vernon -- At least you know where you are with Microsoft. True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle. http://www.debian.org -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpUFtET2mRzS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Fine. I had figureds that -vote would be related to the vote process, but if you wish to clutter up this mailing list with general discussions Like I said, I really don't care where the actual discussion is held. I only follow it so far... What I *do* want is 1) not having to follow -devel to find seconds and 2) not get the rest of the discussion cc'd to me (if someone suggests cc'ing secretary). Yes, please, if for nothing else than to create a distinct header different from the conventions of -policy. Hmm... Then how about [GR P...] [GR A...] etc? I'd like to make sure the header is a little different for each action to to be sure the author sets/changes the subject in these cases. I would rather have the GR mentioned in both places (the subject as well as the body). Makes no difference... I was not thinking about the ballots, but it would not be a bad idea to have the ballot have the text of the final proposal. I think Branden did a good job on his CFV, personally. Maybe I'll work on something automatic that'll include such text. The Ballots are autogen'd right now... Personal likes are not wuite as important as havin a single, publicized palce for keeping track of the current resolutions, which is accesible through email and http, and follows well known conventions for access and usage that debian developers are already familair with. If you have an alternate methodology of keeping track of things with similar functionality, bring it forth. Statements of personal preference do not quite cut it. Sure, mailing list and their archives... I would hope we don't have so much activity as the -policy group that the lists/archives methods become unmanageable. You are wrong. Getting enough sponsors is to cut down on frivoulous resolutions, and ensure that there is a bare minimum of support. It does in no way assure a minimum period. I take it you have not been observing what happens on the -policy group: something is proposed, and immediately garners folowers (seconds). No, the number of seconds is unrelated to pre discussion time periods (and I suyspect that you'l have to raise the number a lot to get the period inflated). On the other hand, raising the number to a hundred or so would cut down the number of these proposals to an acceptable volume. The idea is to increase the number of seconds beyond the immediate camp followers (which seem to be about 5-7 based on the last two non-DPL votes), certainly not 100. That would be the entire body of voters. The act of trying to get the sponsors should/would generate the pre-discussion. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpfOiEyrvAnQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:20:13PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: This might be a good idea, but how did I get dragged into it? I have neither voted nor added to this vote discussion. Adam, who is a little perplexed First name I came up with... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpfMpQgSvvcH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:24:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: a) All general resolutions must start with an announcement to debian-devel-announce and debian-devel, with foolow ups redirected to -devel. No. resolutions won't be tracked on -devel. If I get cc'd, I'll end up getting the whole flmefest dumped in my inbox because many people don't bother to trip headers. That's also unacceptable. The propper place is -devel-announce and -vote with follow ups to -vote. If the person wants to cc -devel also that's up to them but that's also cross posting as far as *I* am concerned. With this setup, people who want to follow voting topics w/o subscribing to and wading through the -devel list can. b) The announcement should be generally labeled as being general resolutions, including, but not limited to, a subject tag, like so: Subject: [GENERAL RESOLUTION] ... I thought [Proposal] was enough (to distinguish from [Amendment] but if you prefer GENREAL RES instead, I can live with that. It should be enough to state that this proposal is a GR in the body, though. Infact, you state a liberal approach (no limited to I'd rather limit it to [P...] and [A...] with GR mentioned in the body and be a little more strict about it. c) The call for votes should be submitted to -devel and -vote, after the discussion period is over and a final form of the resolution is available, along with any amendments, etc, which have recieved adequate number of seconds. d) The call for votes should contain the full text of the proposed resolution and amendments, along with the names of the proposer and seconds. Are you drawing a distinction between the CFV and the ballot? The vote doesn't happen automaticly. The proposer or a sponsor has to Call for the Vote and then I pass out the ballets... The following are just proposals e) We may create a virtual package so that we can use the BTS to track the progress and status of the all current resolutions. The initial proposal, any amendments, and the final form and ballot should all be CC'd to the bug report (the intervening discussions need not be). I didn't like the Policy stuff going to the BTS, I object to GR stuff going there, too. f) Mandate a pre prosal, or require that there have been a period of discussion prior to calling for a general resolution. Include a rationale in the initial proposal that details when the discussions were held, and why we think a resolution is required That's what getting enough sponsors is supposed to do. If the required 5 come automaticly, then maybe we should raise the minimum or do away with it all together instead of adding another layer of preproposal. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgp6aNNNxumar.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: Yes, you are. The situation has changed. We now have a logo, we voted on that, and I'm certainly not trying to change that fact. If you want to be pedantic this vote is actually an attempt to reverse the previous logo vote, since we voted against the swirl as the free-use logo when ``Modified Swirl'' failed to win. My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed. If it had been discussed, I think we could have reached a consensus without a vote. At least if it had finally required a vote, then the question being voted on might actually have addressed the problem, rather than approaching it from an obtuse angle. Just because something isn't a technical issue, doesn't mean that it is inconceivable that someone could come up with a convincing enough argument to persuade people about it. I think one of the problems we have is an issue of what must be developer vote and what not. *Who* gets to decide that the logos should/should not be swapped? The 5-10-15 (for example) people active on the -publicity list? A delegate of the DPL? If it were packaged like the policy manual or the packaging manual, I'd say the maintainer but as it is... who has the authority. Where is the line between an agreement amoung a minority of developers (which is what a consensus would be.. since the majority would be silent) and an agreement by vote which would, if nothing else, draw more people into expressing an opinion... even if that opinion is yea or nea... even if that opinion is uninformed. Err.. that was rambling.. the upsod is, where's the line between a few deciding and more deciding? -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpuVlsyAvzeg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:59:38AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, I am wondering what value do these suddenly burgeoning votes have? I understand that they may give us an understanding about public opinion, but what other charter are they run under? They certainly do not seem to follow the contstitutional general resolution protocol, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that merely voting has been authorized as an accepted method for making changes in the way we operate. Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely on these votes. This is a blatently untrue statement. Every vote so far has been conducted under the constitution. Every vote has had a two week (the non-free isn't being voted on.. it's in the dicussion period now) discussion period before a vote was called. According to the constitution, proposals by the DPL don't require sponsors(seconds). Manoj, I respect your opinions and if you don't like the constitution or the way the constitution works, then that's one issue but to (essentially since it falls in my responsiblity) accuse me of not following the constitution is not fair. - Darren -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpbGiDSZEJHP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:34:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: FWIW, I'm also a little troubled by the plethora of votes. I quite So have I. Some of these I can see the need, such as the non-free vote that's coming up. But I thought something like the logo swap could have been settled through dicussion *if* somebody had the authority... [As an aside: but who? Who is the person who can stand up, at the end of the discussion, and say Ok, we [will|won't] swap the logos? but that's another topic] One posibility is to increase the number of sponsors needed to a level where the proposer would have to activly try to get sponsors. It's pretty easy to get 5 sponsors but (maybe) not 10... so he'd get 5-7 automatic sponsors and then would have to find the remaining by asking people, If think we should vote on this, please go sponsor... Maybe it would be helpful if the vote pages included one or more rationales for each option on the vote page, rather than leaving them hidden in the list archives. For example, some of the comments Jason Gunthorpe made in the non-free thread (in particular related to the possibility of non-free being orphaned by the ftp maintainers) should be available on the website to contrast Wichert's appraisal of the situation. As secretary, I would love that. The web team will need volunteers to write those posistion statements, however. During the Leader Elections, I tried to get platform statments that could be put up on vote.debian.org and it wasn't easy. It does seem really stupid to be passing a general resolution of the entire developer corps just to swap two piccies. It'd be nice if, in future, these things could be thought about in advance enough so we only need to vote once on these issues. :-/ [Back to the aside: It might be an idea to set up maintainers for some of these non-package items. If someone, say Adam Heath for example, were made the maintainer of the logo, he could be responsible for collecting opinion and guiding discussion on the swap and asking for a vote if it seemed contentious] On the upside, I think Darren's been running these pretty well --- I'm not sure about everyone else, but I fully expected votes to get lost, or miscounted, or *something* for the first few votes. A few spelling mistakes is pretty gee-darn good if you ask me. Thank you :) And I've started to use ispell, atleast :) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpNK6UebKUDX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 11:37:02AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: As secretary, I would love that. The web team will need volunteers to write those posistion statements, however. During the Leader Elections, I tried to get platform statments that could be put up on vote.debian.org and it wasn't easy. Well, this is also a bit problematic - our current system does have a bit of a flaw, the presenter of the vote obvoisly gets to set the ballot and the proposal text - so they get to print a happy picture. As AJ noted this isn't very good. But if you allow anyone to include their paranoid ramblings in the proposal then that isn't any better.. I'd just suggest that Darren should get to select the content to appear on the web site and the proposals and what we vote on so that it is of a good quality, truthfull and meaningfull. I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work, either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like. [I tried to generalize it for all people filling this position] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpvprLbSXICB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:02:12PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote: I don't think it should be any blind ramblings but a situation where the Secretary is required to write the pro and con summaries won't work, either. Even he has opinions that would taint the choice he didn't like. Well, I mean you should get to select which write ups get onto the web page.. Like if I write something that is obviously crazy and submit it, you should be able to turn me away. Agreed.. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgp0qDqSiVVmQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Logo swap vote is bogus
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: [ I'm cross-posting this, because it seems that people managed to miss what is going on what with messages being spread across debian-vote, and debian-publicity. Please follow up to -publicity] [I did not follow up to -publicity because I think it's a -vote issue. I did leave -publicity in because it was requested that the messages go there] From talking to people over the weekend at the UKUUG Linux conference, I get the impression that there is a consensus that the plain swirl is nicer that the with-bottle-swirl, and that if we must have two logos, then it would be better to have the plain-swirl in the widest possible use (because it's nicer). If that's true, then we should be discussing it, rather than going to a vote with practically no discussion whatsoever. Decision making in Debian has always previously been based on consensus, even if the consensus was simply ``We should vote on it''. In this case, I seen no evidence that there was a consensus for a vote, so I'm not convinced that there will be any validity to the result. The constitution, unfortunatly, doesn't work like this. According the the constitution, a vote will happen any time 6 developers want an issue voted on (1 Proposer and 5 sponsors). I'm not trying to argue right or wrong.. just is and if that's not the way it should be done, the constitution must be changed not just a consensus opinion that we should do the voting differently. From reading the archives again, it seems that events happened like this: Branden mentioned the vote idea (not sure which list). The first time I saw anyting was to -devel and it was a formal proposal (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9906/msg00427.html) I objected because (IIRC) it was too specific, and should allow for other possibilities (such as alternatives that Raul could come up with). Objections of a developer does not stop a vote... only the lack of sponsors or the withdrawl of the original proposal. Branden resubmitted his unchanged proposal to debian-vote and debian-publicity He did this in response to an open message I left stating that I can miss official stuff posted to -devel and that proposals should be sent to either -vote or [EMAIL PROTECTED] A bunch of people seconded it. Later, on -publicity, Adam Di Carlo said that we shouldn't be voting on this in the first place. Raul followed up by saying that he agreed that discussions should continue on -publicily, for a final decision, and that he'd come up with some more versions of the logo. Witchert said that in that case, he was against the logo swap. Then nothing more was said, as far as I can see. But the proposal was never withdran, nor were any of the seconds. Then the proposer (after teh required time) called for a vote on the issue... In the old days, that would have been the end of it, until we heard back form Raul, but now we get automatically bulldozered into a vote, despite the fact that there seems to be no consensus that we should even have a vote. The constitution was designed to formalize a lot of stuff that was done informally in the old days. With 500+ developers, it's hard to be a close group of intimate people so Ian and a bunch of others worked on a constitution to govern decisions. The trouble is, that I think the majority of the people voting for ``Swap'' are actually voting for ``Use the swirl, and forget the bottle'', which is something different. Very possible :( I *hope* people are informed voters... I can see this sort of thing happening again --- we need to stop people proposing votes before there has been a chance to build a consensus (without a vote). Otherwise the minority of people who can be bothered to vote, will be able to push through all sorts of drivel. How? There is no restriction for proposing votes except that that they must be a developer. The only restrictions to actually holding the vote is time (1-3 weeks, depending on the DPL) and enough sponsors (5). Do the right thing, and vote ``Further Discussion'' now! And for those of you who want to, you can change your vote by re voting -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgp1Tzr1PqQ8s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:40:14AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order of ballot position). Assuming no further discussion appears #1 on the least ballots, it is dropped and anyone who voted for it as their first preference gets reallocated to the second preference (i.e. someone voting 2341 will have their vote reallocated to option 1). This iteration is repeated. So, assume we have the situation (assuming further discussion was dropped for now): 1 - 100 first place votes 2 - 80 first place votes 3 - 110 first place votes Option 2 gets dropped, and everyone who placed option 2 first has their votes reallocated based on their second preferences (or third preferences for people who voted x2x1, where x is don't care). Assuming people who supported 2 are more likely to support opt. 1 than opt. 3, opt. 1 will win. Debian's counting method is more complicated than that :( We use the concord accounting system where an option gets a point if more people prefer it to some other option... Debian only falls back to STV in case of a tie. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgp2LOSUvDK0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 01:43:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Thanks to apt, this is impossible unless we make apt annoying (and hence reduce its utility). I don't think moving it shall make much of a difference to people, apart fr5om the annoyance of having to change mirror scripts and source lists. manoj The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the ftp/http trees. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgp2KyBExRnpC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: vote.debian.org: swapping the logos (is it happening?)
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:15:30AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: http://vote.debian.org/ claims there's a vote on swapping the logos going on, but the ballot sender won't send me a ballot to vote on it... what gives? I jumped the gun on the web page. I tried to time it so the web pages didn't get updated until tomarrow (Wed).. which is when I'm told the CFV will be issued. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpg4L1yYOAts.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:34:55AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: I suspect the net effect is the same, however. (My bad, should have re-read the constitution.) In about 75% of the cases (that I tested), it is... The bottom line is that RMS's concerns are addressed by the voting system. Agreed! :) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpgJ0oY2i3gb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: deregulate/purge non-free; merge contrib main
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote: Here's my reasoning: Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely The non-free packages *are* packaged to Debian's high standard and *are* managable through the BTS. This is also good for Debian as it tries to fulfill it's promise to support users who choose to use non-free software. An area that stores OTHER deb uploads that don't meet Debian's policy is not a bad idea... doing away with any are for non-free debs that are packaged from WITHIN the project is not a good thing, I think. The stuff in contrib, IMO, belongs in Main. The GPL says nothing GPL might not.. but the GPL isn't our litmus test. It's the DFSG. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpgs3B151zYg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Darren The difference is more for the casual browser browsing the Darren ftp/http trees. And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's not. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpiNB4n6owyM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's not. Would making them available as ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/not-officially-part-of-debian--non-free/ that's preferrable to the seperate server?? make everyone happy then? (With a nice symlink from stable/non-free for the convenience of our users, of course. :) If that's not enough, how is The symlink, of course, ruins the issue. non-free.debian.org enough? Shouldn't it be non-free.sorta-debian.org? sorta-debian would require another internic registration. It might be better to leave them out. How does the casual browser know that something on a particular server that *is* in the debian.org domain isn't really part of debian? Again, who's this targeted at--casual users or hard-liners who already know the difference? I believe casual users and newbies and the sensitive. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpDbOmQNfQIn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:43:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: YEAH!!! Wichert, you are my hero! It's so important that we make a decision on it, and I hope it will be (1) or (2), but not (3). I agree :) Richard Stallman will be happy, too, and I think it is a good idea to make this step towards him. But apart from that, I also think it is important for Debian to strenghten its identity. Another good step from our fearless leader to put this up to a vote! Yes, it is. This one has been the work of blood, sweat and tears (and getting that logo vote out of the way) since Linux World Expo. Three cheers for Wichert! -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpF6KKkBAiSP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 05:05:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think it could be done simply by moving contrib and non-free out of the
dists/ directory.. Nobody is confused as to project/experimental and I
think they would be no more confused by something on the order of
nondebian/potato/{contrib,non-free} vs dists/potato/main or (possibly in
the future) dists/potato/hamradio ...
Like renaming, I don't think this will be enough. We already have seperate
directories and it's not working. Use apt as an example, it would require
a seperate line in the sources.list file... clear distinction. use ftp as
an example, it would require a seperate connection, not just chaning
directories in the current connection...
SOMEBODY somewhere is going to argue that contrib isn't non-free and
shouldn't be treated as such. You won't hear me arguing it, however you
have been warned.. =
True, but it contrib is 1) non-debian (but non-debian.debian.org???) and 2)
very closely tied to non-free.
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=
* http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* * ---*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
=
pgp1RPmfViJNT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user web pages or APT. Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an extreme. -- Debian shall not use it's machines or resources to distribute software that fails the DFSG. Debian will not accept any packages that fail the DFSG or support and projects producing non-DSFG complient software. Debian web pages and miscellaneous other software will refrain from indexing or otherwise referencing non-DFSG software. -- What you have proposed will end up about half way to three quarters of the way to that full statement, you might as well finish the job, and really that is what the vote will be about, not about a 'archive split'. Incidently, as an aside.. to anyone who thinks that this would just be a simple creation of a new host.. No, it isn't. In discussions it's pretty much come out that it would be run by a different ftpmaster team, it would have it's own upload arranagment and it's own mirror arranagement, we'd need to find sponsorship and hardware to run it, etc. APT would no longer list non-free components and would make no mention that they even existed, etc. I don't see that as part of the proposal.. any of it. Where would apt not have a comment section in the sources.list that said, for other packages... Why can the web site not say, information on other packages not part of Debian and point to non-free.d.o. Why does there have to be a seperate FTP team? Why does non-free have to have a different upload structure any more than non-us does? -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpQ5sPtWqujB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 12:40:14AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an extreme. Deliberately so, but still. Sometimes painting a horror picture can focus attention - As I said at the bottom, I feared a rehash of the merits of names debate. Understood.. I don't see that as part of the proposal.. any of it. Where would apt not have a comment section in the sources.list that said, for other packages... Indeed, it isn't, all those things fall under the category of 'implementation details'. Ask the people involved, as I did, for their feelings on the subject and that is a very real set of subsequent events. You are asking why, I am saying that is how the people who are going to do it have considered doing it, the proposal doesn't cover it so the various teams in charge make the choices. And it's the choice of the maintainer, true. But since it's implementation details or -policy? We already knew that the archive split was to contentious to be solved by Manoj's policy method, but once settled, isn't -policy the place to hammer out the details? Why can the web site not say, information on other packages not part of Debian and point to non-free.d.o. Why does there have to be a seperate For that you'll have to ask RMS - he suggested that idea, I have no idea if anyone intends to pick it up, but voting in a proposal like this is a strong starting point for such things. I could be wrong, it's been a few months, but I think RMS accepted the link as above and didn't say anything about seperate FTPMasters or upload mechanisms when I talked to him about this at Linux World Expo. Maybe somebody else has more information...??? (I know what RMS wants in his heart-of-hearts might be different than what he asks for...) -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpK8Ws6a0kla.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:26:01AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: I suggest also to purge master of non-free software, if we are really serious about free software purity: #37143 www.debian.org: Should use a free search engine. And master still uses qmail :-( Debian *is* doing this. Converting va to exim was step one. Next step is master. Also, Jason has done tremendous work laying the groundwork to move from PGP to GPG. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpa0SrTp3YsQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 07:21:37PM +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote: IMHO, if we choose I), the creation of nonfree.debian.org and the move of non-free and contrib there should be postponed until potato is released. But there's no point in discussing it until the vote is done... -- I'm not disagreeing here. I'd like more information. Why should the move wait? We don't even have a target date for potato's release, do we? -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpRWFhKkXzm1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:37:24PM +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote: Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think it may serve better: Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving those packages anywhere? There is a number of ways that could be done - something in the name of the package It's even less distinct than what we currently have (or no difference if we keep the current layout). - a message when installing the package Nagware-ish. Every non-free package you install, you have to agree to some announcement that this package is non free... - something that shows up clearly in dselect/apt (this applys to above, too) doesnt' help the distinction for people browsing http or ftp directories... And perhaps, the README.Debian should be mandatory to contain a brief explanation why this package is considered non-free (often it is obvious, but often it is not, especially for those new to the world of free software) I think this is a good idea, regardless of what we do with the archive... it's a -policy issue. Many of the users do get Debian on CD, so they won't even realize which server the packages were on. Also, putting an additional server in your apt-file is a one time action, while a sign on every package (however it would look) would be recognized at every installation. putting an additional like would be like saying I wish to use non-free software That covers teh anser to each question. It's a chance to make a consious decision by the user. They see the free stuff. They're told that non-free stuff exists if they check this other server or add this line to their source.list file. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgprm2bXgmZjy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: just so you won't miss it...
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 06:22:05PM -0400, R Garth Wood wrote: I'll just send this directly to debian-vote(there was no reply-to). The reason the distinction is not clear now is that ppl want that feature(to be easy to install debs of any license). If you try to change that they will just circumvent whatever measure is in place and make it just as easy, perhaps making the distinction less clear. I you want to make the distinction I think there is probably a better way. Maybe nf-pkg_name*.deb or something. Is this a recommendation to vote against the proposal, a proposed amendment to the proposal, or just a comment? For the record, I would prefer to see nonfree.debian.org. That way it's clear to people using FTP and http, also. When we have our own developers say Debian's got X number of packages in it (and they count non-free) the distiction blurred to much. A different machine (or atleast a different directory tree) should help restore the balance. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgphQiTflDLHp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 05:58:21PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: I think it takes 1 minute about once a week to click on a bookmark to bring up a relatively simple page to check if there is an active proposal. If you'd rather get it via e-mail, subscribe to debian-vote. Unfortunately it is all too easy for CFVs to get lost on this mailing list. I would prefer it remained an announce list, or that CFVs were also sent to debian-devel-announce. I am not interested in the other discussion on this list. I'll break in here. It's not directed at anyone in particular but is my position on the topic of this thread. All CFVs to date have been sent to -vote and -devel-announce If you're not subscribed to one of those, you will miss the ballots. The ballot *could* be cross posted to every list in the Debian list server, everybody has their favorite but only the two above are the proper forum. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgptO9qhIwHy0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Ugly Logo and the Consequences
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 08:29:03AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 12:17:16PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: I am not interested in the other discussion on this list. Then how can you possibly make an informed decision? Ok, the logo was pretty simple (although discussion about why certain candidates would not make good logos was imformative). But the idea that you would vote on an ammendment to the constition without being bothered to follow the discussion on the effects/meanings of that ammendment is a little scary to me. For other ballots, I would be; for this one, I didn't find any discussion necessary. I can't see why all discussion of a ballot must occur on the debian-vote list. Most of these things being on debian-devel, and could remain there. There is no reason. Howerver, much of the discussion spins off of the proposals and results and such so the discussion tends to remain on -vote. The only argument I can see for -vote being a discussion list is volume. There *could* be people who want to participate in the dicussions who can't handle the volume of -devel (for a variety of reasons, one that I consider valid is the cost of d/l the mail for people how pay either by the byte or by the minute). I would object to any rule that discussion *must* be on -vote, but I would also object to any rule that dicussion *must not* be on -vote. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpJES6jQ2OIe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarification on vote page and archiving this list
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:35:39PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: *Please* could there be a clarification of Modified swirl on the votes page. I'd be happy too. What do you suggest? What is unclear? Please could someone arrange for this list to be make accessible on the mailing list archives web page? It's not very nice to have to login to master to read it, and it's not (AFAIK) a private list. this is also being worked on. From what I understand, a procmail rule was munged for the Lists-Archives pipe. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpawGaNJ6B9R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BALLOT] Logo2
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 03:02:01PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: As I see it there is the official without bottle and an unofficial with a bottle. Raul just provided a colour and a BW version of both. Swirl only, isn't that the Modified Swirl with an optional Official statement on the - doh - official version. That's the way it was presented in the proposal. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpqrnfSpdEvt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clarification on vote page and archiving this list
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: The current text reads: Modified swirl pending swirl w/ offical I would suggest the following: Modified swirl: as swirl, but only the version without the vase; the official and general versions to be distinguished by the text debian versus debian official or something similar. Done... give the web pages a day to hit all the mirrors. I have no idea how many developers understood this when voting -- I certainly didn't without checking the -vote archives. Actually, I was told before the vote took place that the pages were being archived so I was relying on that for clarification. I wasn't aware until recently that the archives WERENOT up. That has been fixed. I saw some may archives today. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpwEdbIHREBi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [BALLOT] Logo2
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:34:32AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: Well, does this mean everyone who casted a vote should send it again it? Thanks, If did not get back an error message... no. If you ballot was accepted, then everything is fine. The only people who need to recast a ballot are people who got back some sort of error message or people who want to change their choices. -- Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr] - http://www.linux.it/%7Esalve/ http://www.gnu.org/ * http://www.debian.org/ * http://www.linux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. = * http://benham.net/index.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * ---* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] * = pgpokt3Pyn6Vx.pgp Description: PGP signature
