On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:28:06PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
This is the final day of the nomination period, which started
on 2003/01/24, and shall end on 2003/02/14 00:00:00 UTC. The
campaigning period shall start then. Voting shall start on March 7th
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Please, get Andrew's editorial-fixes proposal passed already. *sigh* I don't
give a damn about the non-free issue either way, but I *do* care that the
'main' archive is *actually* free.
For someone
Dear fellow developers,
As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
are twofold:
1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and
sentimental value for most of
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:50:31AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
resolution was proposed, and seconded:
The Debian Project,
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:33:02AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Hey, does anybody object to a call for votes on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 being put out by the secretary?
There was much discussion on the issue on many lists, and going by the
proposers and seconders, everybody I
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:25:40PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:04:12 +0200
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:33:02AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Hey, does anybody object to a call for votes on
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:40:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
There's no need to have a vote here at all: if you can convince the
technical ctte that the social contract doesn't mean what I think it says,
or can come up with a consensus that we don't care about being able to
have a literal
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:22:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nevertheless, as things stand the decision is made; unless _something_
changes, sarge won't release with DFSG-free docs. At present, though,
very little is being done to follow through on that.
I beg to differ. Debian have ongoing
Dear developers,
To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
developers could settle the issue by a GR.
Unfortunately, none of the
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
feel comfortable with.
Manoj's
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
We, Debian developers, issue the statement:
On the question on what software
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:23:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:30:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
I beg to differ. Debian have ongoing discussion with the FSF on this issue,
see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06892.html for the
status. To give
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I, for one, have not dismissed arguments that the social contract
may allow us to follow the old release schedule, and that a strict
interpretation of the social contract may not be correct. I just haven't
seen any such arguments,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:32:48AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:03:43AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread
along the following lines:
But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
sarge soon that we have proposed so many paths to reaching this goal.
This is an effort to build consensus, not a lack of consensus on our
part. Debian is a
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
sarge soon that we have
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:33:29AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Can you please refer me to the discussions in question? As far as I can
tell, both Steve and I
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 09:01:47AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
Your comment was mildly funny, but I'd like to remind you of the
importance of solidarity in a project like this. Moshe said to love thy
neighbor via constructive acts, even if you personally hate him.
Brainfood, and Ean
Hello DPL candidate,
My question is:
How do you see the relation between Debian and Ubuntu in the future?
Thanks in advance for your answers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Hello DPL candidate who signed the Vancouver plan,
(Excluding Anthony Towns who signed as (ftpmaster) not as (DPL
candidate).)
The Vancouver plan has several mention of the security team which lead
to believe it was accomodated to address the concern of this team.
However [EMAIL PROTECTED] shows
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right with counting words, and Bill is wrong when he says the
team was mentioned several times. But since there was no rationale
for the criteria put on release arches, people tried to
I concurr.
I find AJ rebuttal on that specific point outrageous:
I am a SPI contributing member since 2001. By my reckon:
1) Branden is the only candidate that has contributed to SPI management.
2) Branden is by far the SPI contributor that has done the most for SPI
since 2001.
3) Branden
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
So, Anthony, I don't know if you can change your rebuttal, but if you can
I would suggest you to remove that part.
Also, I suggest rebuttals to be restricted to the plateforms of the other
candidates
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
answered]
* Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
No, that would be stupid. This is why we have a guard against
replay attacks.
But if the original vote that was signed and posted publicly was never sent
in, then there wouldn't be any record of the vote--so if it
Hello developers,
It resort for this thread that OPN policy let the channel founder choose the
channel policy to a large extend.
Suppose that Debian mandate a developer as channel founder to found a new
channel on OPN, then Debian can setup a policy on this channel under the limit
of the OPN
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:28:06PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
This is the final day of the nomination period, which started
on 2003/01/24, and shall end on 2003/02/14 00:00:00 UTC. The
campaigning period shall start then. Voting shall start on March 7th
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Please, get Andrew's editorial-fixes proposal passed already. *sigh* I
don't
give a damn about the non-free issue either way, but I *do* care that the
'main' archive is *actually* free.
For
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:50:31AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
Please refer to the following messages, in which a General
resolution was proposed, and seconded:
The Debian Project,
Dear fellow developers,
As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change
are twofold:
1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and
sentimental value for most of
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
As I expect that at least one of the seconds/proposer will object to
this amendment (heh), I'm actively looking for seconds myself now.
I personally object to this because I find actually what you call bugs
to be much more
My take on that part:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
The GR proposal apparently results in useful GFDL-covered material to be
moved to the non-free section. In a previous GR, Debian has reaffirmed
support for non-free. Is it a conscious motive or an
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
fact.
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
Fact 2: The DFSG include this:
6
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
encryption
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:10:55PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
using the software.
Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
documentation if they work in a security field
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:10:14AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The problem is, if DFSG #5 and #6 mean what you think they mean, they
effectively prevent _all_ license restrictions whatsoever. Because if
DFSG 6 is only about license restrictions on usage. It does not cover
restriction on
Dear Debian developers,
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the next Debian Project
Leader.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red swirl here.
pgpZkdaUzNvnp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:01:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The campaign period is open according to
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_002, so here are two questions for all
of the candidates.
1. The past two years have seen higher numbers of candidates standing for DPL
than in
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:18:55PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
Two years ago, Branden Robinson talked about the issue of some tasks in
the project that are neither delegated by the Project leader nor covered
by the Constitution directly. [1] He referenced his platform from
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:23:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi everybody,
here are some questions for all candidates. They are related to the
Debian-Ubuntu cooperation. (If you're not a candidate and wish to give me
your opinion on that subject, please do so by private mail or move the
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:00:25PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Martin was running this year, I would not. The last year the DPL focus
^
has shifted from technical leadership to social leadership, and Debian
is more attractive
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:12:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand, this aspect is completly lost in Ubuntu. Most major
design decisions in Ubuntu are made by developers working for Canonical,
not volunteers.
This is entirely untrue
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:58:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Questions for all candidates:
If elected, you will be the ninth Project Leader in Debian's history. Of
the preceding eight DPLs, which one do you admire most as a leader and why?
Well, I don't know much about the four first
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:25:49AM +0100, Jutta Wrage wrote:
In all other plattforms there are only minor validation problems that
can be corrected easily without making a noticible difference. But as
far as I can see, none of the pages really was valid HTML strict and
none (or nearly
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi everyone,
If you had to summarize your platform with 3 keywords, what would they be ?
If such a necessity were forced upon me, I would answer
Liberté Égalité Fraternité.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large red
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
Though there are often threads about problems with it on our mailing
lists, the NM process hasn't changed much in the last three or four
years. What do you think about the most common problems (takes too
long, is
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:45:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Bill,
You write in your platform that
-- I am independent, so I will be able to represent all the developers.
What is it that you're independent from that other candidates aren't, and
how exactly does independence help
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:59:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Not that I couldn't have learned that also later, when I really needed
it. But the NM process was in fact a good opportunity to learn it
right, get immediate feedback on my achievements (and not via the
BTS...), and to take it
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
During DPL campaigning, it seems in for candidates to propose all
sorts of Great Things they will try to do once elected. While this is
obviously all interesting information, it leaves out something that, I
think, is also
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The process to expel a developer is described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg5.html
I am not sure whether all expulsion attempts get far enough
to be recorded on -private or -project as described in
the
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Now my question:
1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
openly?
2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
3.) Do you think more DSA are needed?
I would like to
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Now my question:
1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
openly?
2.) Would you
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why would we need more total CPU time? Not even leisner is
overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
(leisner has a different problem, though).
Hence, please explain why we need more total CPU time and
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:17:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:36:42AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
2. Do you believe it would be fair to cite someone's non-technical
socio-religious views in the reasoning for or against expulsion?
I
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:18:39AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I am not in favour of such code. I am in favour of giving
general guidelines and but not to enforce them. People should follow
them because they agree with them
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:02:37PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
I admit I haven't read the platforms as thoroughly as I should've, so
forgive if it was covered...
IIRC nobody talked about SPI in their platform. Is SPI important for
Debian? What is Debian's current relationship with
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:38:51PM -0800, Ted Walther wrote:
Hi Bill. As the packager of ratmenu, I've had to grapple with the
menu package, which you maintain.
Bill, can you tell us the reason you chose to implement your own unique
configuration language for menu? Why did you choose to
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:16:34AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
4. In light of the well organised presence of Skolelinux and the
professional presence of Ubuntu at several conferences and exhibitions
do you believe Debian is represented adequately?
I know it is a biaised view point, but
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:01:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:12:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I would like to see some language to the effect that we make the
exception for firmware only in the cases of data that use the moral
equivalent of the kernel
Hello GR proponents,
before we vote I would very much appreciate example of firmware
that would be affected by your proposal (and how).
I already asked for something similar without answer in August.
I am concerned with including in Debian firmwares whose license
reduce the usefulness of
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then:
we created the non-free and
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:03:47AM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I propose the following option to the GR:
PROPOSAL
The Debian Project reaffirms its commitment of providing a 100% free
operating system, and reaffirms the decisions taken by GR 2004-03, but
some technical issues regarding
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hi all,
(a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
I am quite concerned you still did not get past that.
social_contract.1.1 has been voted upon
Dear Debian developers,
As an amendement to the firmware GR, I hereby propose the following
position statement.
===
THE DEBIAN PROJECT:
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to
our users according to our Social Contract
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
4 does not seem to account for the fact that removing such firmware may mean
having to choose between losing support for certain hardware in our
installer, and releasing etch according to schedule. Did you mean for 4 to
say
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:36:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
| firmware issue; however, it is not yet
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to know
why you seconded this.
Did he ? Frederik accepted the amendment but did not second it as far as
I see.
Cheers,
--
Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a large
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:12:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall
vote;
Apart from the fact that these are under separate sections of
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of
turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for.
It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through
their body by banning
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not reasonable for the project to vote on questions of legality, nor
is it appropriate to rely on debian-legal for questions of legality. If the
May I remind that debian-legal is a mailing list ?
relevant
Dear Debian voters,
I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther.
=
The Debian project resolves that:
1) Sven Luther is the best Debian developer ever. Ever.
2) The Debian
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
Dear Debian voters,
I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther
Dear Debian voters,
I hereby propose the following General Resolution for sponsoring.
---
The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform
Hello Debian developers,
According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the
requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007,
---
The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
combined source and binary packages
Dear Debian voters,
I was asked to provide a summary of the current GR. Please keep in mind
that the discussion period is over and that I am the proposer.
Background: for as long as a I am DD, developers were allowed to
perform binary-only upload. The FTP masters have removed this right for
ARM
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:43, Bill Allombert wrote:
Questions raised in the discussion period that are relevant to the GR.
This summary is all very nice, but IMHO does not reflect what this GR is
about.
...
What this GR
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Asking for seconds.
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
Public License are not
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
motivation?
I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.
The purpose of
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
The Debian project resolves that softwares
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:53:19PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 +
Sam Kuper sam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote:
To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the
final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
PROPOSAL START
===
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project, which have
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):
First of all, thanks a lot for your helpful contribution to this discussion.
2. This clause is incompatible
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:06AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:02:42AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
RATIONALE (to be amended
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
(this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in 20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig)
Asking for seconds,
(please CC me)
Bill. ballo...@debian.org
This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require
you to
write
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please CC me).
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:18:24PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
Acting together with themselves? ;-)
Thank you.
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I think we should aim at shortening the voting period too, but likely not
> by much. I would make the voting period last at least 9 days (and no more
> than 14) with a requirement to include two week-ends. Then the secretary
>
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:01:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Having closely followed a bunch of GRs now, my personal impression is that
> almost all of the substantitive discussion happens in the first week.
> Some discussion continues into the second week, and for controversial GRs
> a few
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:56:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert writes:
>
> > I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to
> > the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not
> > have allocate time to partic
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Hello Russ,
Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and
> > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals
> > of openness and transparency.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. From some
A suggestion:
An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
they did not not).
This would still allow voters to check the vote but would not allow
outside parties to use it (unless some DD leaks it,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> > achieve fully,
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
