-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Comments and feedback appreciated.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.
Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions.
##
Votes must be
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes _only_ the
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which
Hi,
what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does?
Sorry, wrong question.
This is a Condorcet vote; we don't sum anything.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is the new version.
This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed this
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+5. Issue, supersede and withdraw
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
the Further Discussion
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Very simple English question. Please elucidate me.
Was there any specific reason to use 3:1 majority and 3:1
super-majority in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
I am talking following sections:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at
Hi,
The following is the public key used which shall be used by
the vote engine to sign acks sent out. It has been signed by my key,
and I will also include it in the ballot itself.
manoj
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to
me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate?
No. I was taught English which may
I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I do?
THANK YOU,
JOHNNY SCOTT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a banner come across my screen that said to contact prize
department immediately that I was the 50,000,000 to visit. What do I
do?
Ignore it. It's some kind of hoax. We've seen other people who have
been subjected toit.
Debian is
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A,
Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Fixed now.
manoj
--
And so it
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
your message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange
to me. Maybe a
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[...]
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
they
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
anthropomorphism.
The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
You'd claim the
Hi folks,
Here is the current incarnation.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to
Hi folks,
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes out
on Tuesday.
Comments and feedback appreciated.
manoj
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Comments and feedback appreciated.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.
Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions.
##
Votes must be
Hi guys,
Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements.
manoj
##
Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.
This
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3:
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
-5. Issue
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is the new version.
This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed this
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
==
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
__
Proposal C:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+5. Issue, supersede and withdraw
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
the Further Discussion
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.
Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
signed) with your
Hi,
Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.
manoj
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
s/delinated/delineated/
Other than that, looks good.
Joe
Very simple English question. Please elucidate me.
Was there any specific reason to use 3:1 majority and 3:1
super-majority in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
I am talking following sections:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at
Hi,
The following is the public key used which shall be used by
the vote engine to sign acks sent out. It has been signed by my key,
and I will also include it in the ballot itself.
manoj
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, David Coe wrote:
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of
paragraph 5:
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
your message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange
to me. Maybe a will
I have a couple of typographical nits:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4).
Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].
[ ]
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[...]
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
they
56 matches
Mail list logo
