be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 06th Oct 2007
The following ballot is for voting on a Constitutional amendment:
reduce the length of DPL election process. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A,
Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian
The following ballot is for voting on a Constitutional amendment:
reduce the length of DPL election process. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A,
Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.
The details of the general resolution can be found
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty
about the DPL's powers.
There is no uncertainty about the period of DPL powers. The power
transfer date has been clearly stated in recent years, hasn't it?
During elections, it's
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is
uncertainty about the DPL's powers.
There's really no uncertainty about them, though. The outgoing DPL is
still in power until the post becomes vacant at the end of the term.
During
AT == Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or
AT less in the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an
AT extra week for DPL elections seems unnecessary.
DPL elections is the most complicated voting with many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Hi,
MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Seconded.
Simon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06-08-2007 07:52, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already)
On Monday 06 August 2007 04:52:58 MJ Ray wrote:
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally
clear. [...]
It's as clear as it is now: DPL (not DPL-elect). The end of the
polling period is not necessarily the election date.
Notice polling closed before the DPL's election for a
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
From AJ's original mail:
...
Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in
the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so
Le samedi 04 août 2007 à 12:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
That's because you only take into account controversial GR. Not all GR
need to be controversial. Sometimes I'm tempted to use GRs to try have some
official position statements from Debian on some topics.
And this is what GRs are
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since this mail, I've asked Martin Michlmayr, Wichert Akkerman, Bdale
Garbee and Branden Robinson about their opinion regarding this post; and
we've also seen replies from Sam Hocevar and Anthony Towns. Some have
replied on-list, others only through
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
Indeed. Reducing our GR rate seems more important than changing the DPL
election process.
I don't agree. I think quite the
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
Indeed. Reducing our GR rate seems more important than
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070804 11:54]:
GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one
the losers and the winners. And the identity you claim to forge, is just
the identity of the winning camp, not Debian's.
Of course, with exceptions like formal GRs, e.g.
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I don't agree. I think quite the contrary. We often tend to not address
issues and let them consume our energy in endless discussions. I believe
that having GR is useful to re-forge
On su, 2007-08-05 at 01:07 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:54:15AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one
the losers and the winners.
Just because your argument doesn't win the day doesn't mean you're a
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being
Hi,
On Friday 03 August 2007 08:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
No. And that's a good thing.
Agreed (to the second, the first is just a fact).
Agreed.
And I felt a bit silly yesterday, when I re-thought about my question - even
looking at the
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 10:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning
appointment of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period
to a week, and the voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
* Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 09:49]:
I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come
forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. I've
felt the same thing for a while as well.
I don't think it's a good idea to increase the time of a DPL term.
* Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 23:04]:
Note that you're still free to step down after one year, so that's
hardly a problem
I don't think anyone would do that. It takes quite a bit to convince
yourself to step down and then actually go through with it.
--
Martin Michlmayr
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
Seconded.
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need
to vote any more :-)
That said, once we reached the 5 DD who seconded (+2/3 more just to be
sure in case
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
I was wondering
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
No. And that's a
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting
procedure as blatantly obvious.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from
On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting
procedure as blatantly obvious.
I think even if
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:25:33PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] (02/08/2007):
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting
procedure as blatantly obvious.
``Seconding a GR'' = ``Voting in favour of a GR''? I don't think so.
Cheers,
--
Cyril
* Joerg Jaspert [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:41:44 +0200]:
Ok, they may hurt the secretary, Manoj will have a fun time listing all
of us seconders. :)
Nothing prevents him from just choosing the first 5 seconds, or 5 at
random, TTBOMK.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at
On 11099 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
Seriously, could we have this change without voting?
Sure, if everyone with a key in the current keyring, ie. including those
MIA, sends a seconded (and
On 11099 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Seconded.
Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to
vote any more :-)
That said, once we reached the 5 DD who seconded (+2/3 more just to be
sure in case of bad signatures), it doesn't bring much to send further
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:25:33 +0200, Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. And that's a good thing.
Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the
resolution, I think the secretary
Marc Haber wrote:
I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a
reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real
problems in the project.
Which, of course and quite naturally, simply vanish when they take the
burdon of being DPL another year.
Regards,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:29:46AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Marc Haber wrote:
I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a
reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real
problems in the project.
Which, of course and quite naturally, simply
Steve Langasek wrote:
I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that
way the DPL will be suitably encouraged to make sure the release never
stalls out ;)
How long will you be DPL?
I'll go when I'm ready to go...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I know the job is for two years, but I only want to do half the job, so
please vote for me, I'm better than those others who are willing to do
the whole job.
I'd better have someone do the job for only one year than someone not
doing the job for
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:38:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems
sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time.
FWIW, I believe that 2 years is too long, both for the DPL who may
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the
reasons outlined by Jeff in:
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html
I'll summarize those as if people want continuity in
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
PS, probably too obvious to mention, but such an amendment needs to only
take effect at the next election cycle.
Yes, no doubt about that.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode,
On Wednesday 1 August 2007 01:46, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Your Dutch seems up to par, but why are you talking Dutch to a
Hi,
* Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-01 13:49]:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]:
[...]
I second this.
According to § 3 of the Procedures for submitting a General
Resolution proposal
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 22:38, Martin Schulze wrote:
FWIW, I believe that 2 years is too long, both for the DPL who may have
to assign much more time to it than now, and for the project that may
suffer under one DPL and would suffer even longer.
I wonder if a better course might not be to keep
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the
reasons outlined by Jeff in:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 09:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The
Hi,
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3.
I fully second the quoted text
Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For
On 11097 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being accused to be
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next
Anthony Towns wrote:
Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like
a win to me. YMMV.
Well, you could get to 5.5% then by only electing the DPL once every 2
years.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3.
On ti, 2007-07-31 at 23:04 +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking as someone who once almost was a candidate, I would like to
point out that a two-year commitment is rather more difficult to make
for many people than a one-year commitment. That is not
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes
Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-]
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:13:05AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
can't do all that much when the next election is about to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems
sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time.
I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that
way the DPL will be
76 matches
Mail list logo
