[ Moving the discussion to -project. Please do remember to drop -vote from the
recipients list if you follow up. ]
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
(I assume that was a typo for
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
How do you define relevant? The vote is run because someome proposed a
GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to
have a link to mail where they
On Sat Jan 10 15:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
How do you define relevant? The vote is run because someome proposed a
GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)):
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
[Raphael:]
I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
selected. I would restrict
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
- To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
the vote:
The Proposer of each
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
The big goal, for me at least, and hopefully for the other participants, is an
eventual agreement on what the constitution says, or alternatively, a broadly
accepted amendment of the constitution that clarifies unclear matters and
settles the
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
The GR ballot should only give the URL on vote.debian.org where you would
find links behind each proposer/seconder. Ideally those links point
directly to the debian-vote archive so that it lets people jump into
discussions directly and form their own
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
never needed.
Agreed.
We should fix the constitution so that we can leave the duty of
interpreting the constitution to the secretary.
Agreed.
We just
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)):
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
- The Secretary should explicitly have the power to delay a GR
vote by up to (say) two weeks for the purposes
Clint Adams writes (Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for
votes for the Lenny release GR)):
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
never needed.
Agreed.
We
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
If the GR proposal does not say that it is a nonbinding position statement or
an override
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
If the GR proposal does not say
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Can we stop this absurd discussion/reasoning?
I don't believe it is absurd. But reading some of the private replies I've
already got to my other mail, it seems my motivation for this discussion has
not been obvious.
To me, this
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
I would like the readers of this list to tell me (PRIVATELY - there is no need
to clutter this list) whether they consider this characterisation of my
messages
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override
decisions that have actually been taken.
On Sun Jan 04 15:55, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only
- Matthew Johnson wrote:
Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
clarify all this)
So how about that release Lenny with DFSG violations GR that needs to pass
with 3:1? I bet if it is clear cut that it will pass easily.
After that we can move on to
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:55:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 16:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the
Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
requires the
[I see that we're now repeating discussions already had up-list, so this
will probably be my last post to this subthread.]
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nor is it anything short of absurd for the Secretary to declare that a
resolution amends a Foundation
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:30:05PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think trivial cases are going to be much of a problem. In any
case, I was thinking of a voting procedure for this body where the few
voters would only be allowed to vote yes or no, plus perhaps a
rationale; we don't
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 01:49:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
the fundamental
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
asserting a power
Thank your for an excellent and insightful analysis. I wish
to touch on just one point:
On Thu January 1 2009 06:44:24 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
What we need is an oracle that says: this is the correct interpretation of
the Constitution. The oracle needs to be respected by both of us so
Hi Mike,
as a fellow non-DD Debian user and advocate, I feel...
Mike Bird wrote:
Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased delegate
I would urge the DPL to re-appoint Manoj
...that you've disqualified yourself from commenting on matters
concerning the Debian constitution.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
should be an instance of appeal like
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081231 21:55]:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for
the first call on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an
appeal instance which makes
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think that we have made the mistake of giving too much power to one
person. While I do not think Manoj willingly abused that power, I do
think that this has made it harder for him to retain his objectivity;
and that he has lost
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
- In a country, the body that decides whether a law is or is not
unconstitutional, can only do so when a citizen explicitly asks it to
do so. In the absence of such a
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of
- Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it
cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the
social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden.
I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
requirements.
(...)
So, yes, that does require interpretation.
Actually I said it does
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
I think the interpretation of supersede that has been tendered by the
previous secretary is
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Oh gee, so the US is using Condorcet now?
You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal to
the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one and
other conducted via a ranking. The presence of
Ean Schuessler wrote:
You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal
to the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one
and other conducted via a ranking. The presence of further discussion
effectively provides a we should do this, we
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to engrave the social contract in stone.
From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would
Ean Schuessler wrote:
The point of the super majority was to engrave the social contract in stone. From the
beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the
organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organization
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from drop all
options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the
winner to determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes
majority requirements?
Hallo,
actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities
in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html
Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed
off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee
mailing list. See also section 7 of my
On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
might be formally required, and in my opinion the corollary is that
supermajorities are a bad idea in
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
general.
To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
American politics. A supermajority insures that a razor thin majority can't end
up doing something
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:38:55PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
general.
To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
American politics. A supermajority
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 02:22:40PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
might be formally required, and in
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if a majority of voters vote that we should put
Nvidia drivers in main, then your fundamental problem is that you have a
majority of people (or at least, voters) in Debian who think it's ok to put
Nvidia drivers in main. Your
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The other option you're proposing here, to prevent them from doing what they
want to unless they have a 3:1 majority, reduces to coerce the majority to
do what you say they should do, even though they don't think you're right.
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if a majority of voters vote that we should put
Nvidia drivers in main, then your fundamental problem is that you have a
majority of people (or at least,
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
in performing their duties.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
packagers)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time that
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:35:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You
cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though
temporarily, bypassing
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
say, and have
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone proposes a GR saying we will ship the binary NVidia
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
I wouldn't say that it is that easy.
It
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone
On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane
and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in
a bad situation anyway. :-)
Insanity is subjective. In some sense, some of the the
interpretations of our
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So,
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says
we will do X but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it
would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all?
What's the point?
Here's the way I see it,
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing
it:
The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is
to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the
project wants. They don't,
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project
is to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what
the project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything.
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's nothing in the consititution that prohibits passing nonsensical
GRs or GRs that contradict foundation documents, as long as they don't
actually alter the foundation documents.
Given a ballot option which does not explicitly specify whether or
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True
Meaning that exists outside of the governance process. The words mean
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
They were drafted before the constitution was and their binding power does
*not* flow
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires
only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution,
to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you
override the ftp-master's
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
They were drafted before the constitution
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
Furthermore, by my reading of the constitution, even if a delegate
override or a position statement clearly and obviously contradicted the
DFSG, as long as it doesn't actually change or set aside the DFSG, it's
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:09:32PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who
didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the
voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position statement
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I
do not think the secretary has the
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if that is on
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Also, resolving to do
something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and
adhereing to that.
No. It's simply taking a decision on the best way to reach
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in
mind. Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means
that dissenting votes
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the
issues are orthogonal.
Can these people explain why they think so? ANd it would help if
they could say why the arguments I present to say it is a single issue
are
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
that an option
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
You made comments, and in
874p1a6l0n@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com were instructed to
get the approval of the proposer of the option in order for the
secretary to change the title of the option. FWICT, you either did not
attempt to do so, or
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to
the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet
Debian.
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who
decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer
decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority
to anyone
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:12PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
canceled.
My suggestion is to do a very simple vote first, with only two choices:
a) continue with the release process and don't wait for further GRs
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one harping on /that/ point. None of
the GR proposals mandate a particular interpretation of the legality of any
component of the archive, the release team has never indicated that they
intended to ignore legal
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I was just thinking of postposing the end-of-vote cron job, so
no re-voting would be needed.
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
the vote, but that
Hi,
just so that I've said this here too:
On Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org
wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to
Brian May dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:45:47AM +1100]:
(...)
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
its application, without reaching the quorum that would be necessary to
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Enforcement of the foundation documents is not defined in the constitution,
so no, this is not a question of constitutional law.
I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that the foundation
documents do not imply any required
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
its
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
not to
On Thu, Dec 18 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
No other body for enforcement of the DFSG is defined in the
constitution. It's up to individual developers to determine for
themselves whether their actions are in keeping with the DFSG/SC, and
with the promise they made when they became DDs to
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:46:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
for
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
--
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
== == = = == ===
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
I would
* Ean Schuessler (e...@brainfood.com) [081217 14:53]:
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your
*interpretation* of the foundation
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
This ballot is nonsense:
a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
lenny to release with DFSG violations AND proprietary firmware
AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
The way
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
