Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
was more willing to listen and take
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
taken as a mandate for the
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution
to be
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:46:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
the seconders who can do such.
Did you actually read this passage from
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:03:33AM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:46:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer
and
the
[Stripping out the cross posting since it's annoying]
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
| 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
|determine whether the decision will stand until the
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:16:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Not really, but i read the way resolution votes where handled (Annex A.),
which says :
A.2.1 The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:20:35AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
delegate on IRC.
I think that basing a decision with the DPL hat on just on what someone
says on IRC is a bad idea.
IRC channels are used for official project
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-10-27 10:27]:
I'm not sure what all this is aiming to achieve beyond being a different
attempt to effectively prevent me from exercising any DPL powers, and
to further discourage people from having any faith in our constitutional
processes.
You
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:20:35AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
delegate on IRC.
I think that basing a decision with the DPL hat on just on what someone
says on IRC is a bad idea.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke 4.2.2.2,
so afaics that doesn't apply.
Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
seems to apply; the resolution must say so verbiage seems to be
there to avoid putting
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
the seconders who can do such.
As you insist - which I still think isn't necessary - I
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu,
On Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 18:14:09 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
If this immediate vote is compliant with the constitutional requirements
(which afaics it's not), please consider the voting period varied to
one week.
I
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:22:32 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke 4.2.2.2,
so afaics that doesn't apply.
Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
seems
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:06:10 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone
who
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:00:39 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
IRC channels are used for official project business; the only difference
between them and mailing lists is technical.
such as ease of access, archival, peer review...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:46 +0200, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as
secretary to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is
only the proposer and the
* Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 19:49]:
FWIW, you can't call an immediate vote on your proposal. Your proposal
still has the normal minimum discussion period. (Unless the DPL varies
it by a week.)
The immediate vote that Manoj is calling is a separate ballot, to
determine
I just want to say that I am deeply dismayed by the turn events
have been taking.
I have a lot of respect for both A.J. and Manoj.
But I don't see a reasonable basis for this disagreement -- this
feels more like venting under high pressure (mostly the Etch
release, I think).
In that context,
[Martin Zobel-Helas]
I don't see the reason here to reduce the time of the voting
period. I understand immediate vote as per constitution as voting
without prior discussion period.
Please give a reasonable argument, why the voting period for this GR
should be reduced to one week.
4.2.3:
Hi,
Please note that the voting period has been abbreviated to one
week.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Saturday, 28 Oct 2006
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 03 Nov 2006
The following ballot is for voting on a immediate
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:57:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
10:23 aj Manoj: will you be following the policy change procedure
you created
years ago? (file a bug marked wishlist with the changes
you want, get a second on the -policy list, answer any
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:58:09 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:57:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
10:23 aj Manoj: will you be following the policy change
procedure you created
years ago? (file a bug marked wishlist with the
29 matches
Mail list logo
