Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 10:27:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: This is a draft that modifies proposal A in a minor way, So any chance we could get some more progress on this? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark pgpPBgCkHGeHQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
Shouldn't this include a No option as well as Further Discussion? no to what ? hehe.. i guess no 's kinda attitude, eh? ;) never mind, oh, yes, :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) pgpjJFYe5vjS5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- A suggested ballot for the secretary to consider is: - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [ ] YES to proposal A: Foundation + issue/modify/withdraw Amend the constitution to introduce Foundation Documents, allow the developers to issue, modify and withdraw them with a 3:1 super majority, and to allow the developers to issue, modify and withdraw all other non technical documents with a simple majority [ ] YES to proposal B issue/modify/withdraw only Amend the constitution to allow the developers to issue, modify and withdraw all non technical documents with a simple majority [ ] Further discussion - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shouldn't this include a No option as well as Further Discussion? I'd also like a description of the process that will be followed to determine the outcome of the vote. The Condorcet method specified in the Constitution is clear about such things in the case of a GR, where only a majority is required. How does it work when two of the ballot options require a supermajority to pass? -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot John better that whatever it is that it uses now. Check your facts. Gnus never used tm, though you may have. The tm folks are now producing semi-gnus, and you should probably use that if you are so enamoured of their way of doing things. manoj -- Those for whom there is no more acquisition, who are fully aware of the nature of food, whose dwelling place is an empty and imageless release - the way of such people is hard to follow, like the path of birds through the sky. 92 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
"John" == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely John that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look John like there was no sig... Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the future. ] John Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. That happens not to bge the case. Gnus did not ahve an ``older'' mime handling. Perhaps you are thinking about third party add ons? In which case you need to look at semi-gnus, or wemi-gnus, or something. manoj -- "You know, we've won awards for this crap." David Letterman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot better that whatever it is that it uses now. -- John Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "John" == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely John that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look John like there was no sig... Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the future. ] John Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. That happens not to bge the case. Gnus did not ahve an ``older'' mime handling. Perhaps you are thinking about third party add ons? In which case you need to look at semi-gnus, or wemi-gnus, or something. manoj -- "You know, we've won awards for this crap." David Letterman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
"John" == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot John better that whatever it is that it uses now. Check your facts. Gnus never used tm, though you may have. The tm folks are now producing semi-gnus, and you should probably use that if you are so enamoured of their way of doing things. manoj -- Those for whom there is no more acquisition, who are fully aware of the nature of food, whose dwelling place is an empty and imageless release - the way of such people is hard to follow, like the path of birds through the sky. 92 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I'm talking about tm, which Gnus used previously, and was a lot better that whatever it is that it uses now. -- John Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely John that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look John like there was no sig... Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the future. ] John Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. That happens not to bge the case. Gnus did not ahve an ``older'' mime handling. Perhaps you are thinking about third party add ons? In which case you need to look at semi-gnus, or wemi-gnus, or something. manoj -- You know, we've won awards for this crap. David Letterman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely John that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look John like there was no sig... Gnus does not yet supprt PGPMIME. It may in the future. ] John Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. That happens not to bge the case. Gnus did not ahve an ``older'' mime handling. Perhaps you are thinking about third party add ons? In which case you need to look at semi-gnus, or wemi-gnus, or something. manoj -- You know, we've won awards for this crap. David Letterman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Please check your mailer. When it left my exim queue, it was signed. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I Second this On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == Peter 'darkewolf' Crystal -- email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] url : http://cyberpunks.org/darke/homepage.phtml url : http://netverse.sourceforge.net/ gpg key : http://cyberpunks.org/keys/darke_gpg.asc "Abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e." PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I repeat my original second to this proposal. Bob __ _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. * This is a proposed amendment to the Project Constitution, and under the terms of 4.1.2 (quoted below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass. This is just FYI. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBOeMvirjz28yo5A65AQGcywP/cjPnKSIgtmu7kV2Mihtsl5H/KT10aKdx 5pQWQ7O1TDb1r5OoWXhCb2QTPtTp0ZZ5QxGRgcYxAOFTdRXS1kvHSeWM7zs5VWcq cZKmzUKimTQ56egPVuXaL71RV2fw2lWu6mFOBJCNH7iq/BRpPUyz147d2Ab6XwXV Nn4wAJOMPCw= =XRUH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. First, I'm sure you mean "any list other than debian-vote" since that's the list we're talking about. I do this so that the developers don't have to subscribe to EVERY list looking for proposals and discussions and sponsors and such. For example, I am not subscribed to -project so I have never seen the proposal originally made there. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. This, again, is mostly a time-saving issue. The one time I can think of where I was having problems, mutt wasn't verifying the signatures properly for me. As a matter of proceedure, I'd rather not have to jump through hoops to verify every signature. Especially since, as time goes on, more and more of this is getting scripted. And that, scripted, is really the key reason. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. As this progresses, I would like to talk to you two... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I formally second this proposal. Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. * This is a proposed amendment to the Project Constitution, and under the terms of 4.1.2 (quoted below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass. This is just FYI. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux|If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws [EMAIL PROTECTED] |will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=q4fDj]Kz?. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux| cultivation of the ability to unlearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] | old falsehoods. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein - -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE541Ih3PeFtIodmh8RAhIiAKCMGbztRIYz1voJaxxo1Hch6oWM5QCeKSpx VaLvH6l5evb2zIpaFvSlaTE= =xEnl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look like there was no sig... Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:30:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Please remember to GPG-sign your seconds! Stevie Strickland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did. Looked like a valid RFC 2015 message to me and mutt, at least... -- G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." The Debian GNU/Linux| original Latin seems to have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | garbled. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:05:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. ^^ Bah, of course I meant debian-vote here. Sorry. -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. It's Debian GNU/Linux |too late to work within the system, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] |too early to shoot the bastards. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |--Claire Wolfe pgpnG3ZIFyT2j.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I second Branden's proposal. Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ pgp35nvUsltCY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count.
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I second Branden's proposal. -- Stevie Strickland| 325912 Georgia Tech Station [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Georgia Institute of Technology http://kelewan.debian.net/~sstrickl | Atlanta, GA 30332 Official Debian GNU/Linux Developer | CS 2130 TA pgpmToEeQ2aCj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:29:23PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. But unsigned, so it just doesn't count. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Oct 10 19:40:01 2000) --] gpg: Signature made Tue Oct 10 19:24:36 2000 NZDT using DSA key ID E0A38377 gpg: Good signature from Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] What a load of crap. Where does it say that the signature must be inline? -- Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Drive nail here ( ) to need a new monitor. - Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! pgpx3i2LSDS2e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I Second this On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == Peter 'darkewolf' Crystal -- email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] url : http://cyberpunks.org/darke/homepage.phtml url : http://netverse.sourceforge.net/ gpg key : http://cyberpunks.org/keys/darke_gpg.asc Abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e. pgpZYx79OE2Z4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Hi, I am sponsoring this proposal with Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Marcus On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP Key [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpJTwC4duDQR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I repeat my original second to this proposal. Bob __ _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. * This is a proposed amendment to the Project Constitution, and under the terms of 4.1.2 (quoted below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass. This is just FYI. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBOeMvirjz28yo5A65AQGcywP/cjPnKSIgtmu7kV2Mihtsl5H/KT10aKdx 5pQWQ7O1TDb1r5OoWXhCb2QTPtTp0ZZ5QxGRgcYxAOFTdRXS1kvHSeWM7zs5VWcq cZKmzUKimTQ56egPVuXaL71RV2fw2lWu6mFOBJCNH7iq/BRpPUyz147d2Ab6XwXV Nn4wAJOMPCw= =XRUH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I thought I'd respond to some of this just as a way of clarifying my thinking... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. First, I'm sure you mean any list other than debian-vote since that's the list we're talking about. I do this so that the developers don't have to subscribe to EVERY list looking for proposals and discussions and sponsors and such. For example, I am not subscribed to -project so I have never seen the proposal originally made there. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. This, again, is mostly a time-saving issue. The one time I can think of where I was having problems, mutt wasn't verifying the signatures properly for me. As a matter of proceedure, I'd rather not have to jump through hoops to verify every signature. Especially since, as time goes on, more and more of this is getting scripted. And that, scripted, is really the key reason. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. As this progresses, I would like to talk to you two...
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I formally second this proposal. Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but according to http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, the current Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent to any list other than debian-project. * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them, I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to debian-vote. * This is a proposed amendment to the Project Constitution, and under the terms of 4.1.2 (quoted below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass. This is just FYI. * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however, should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's position or opinions. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. +5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their amendability. == -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux|If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws [EMAIL PROTECTED] |will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=q4fDj]Kz?. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux| cultivation of the ability to unlearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] | old falsehoods. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein - -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE541Ih3PeFtIodmh8RAhIiAKCMGbztRIYz1voJaxxo1Hch6oWM5QCeKSpx VaLvH6l5evb2zIpaFvSlaTE= =xEnl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Please remember to GPG-sign your seconds! Stevie Strickland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second Branden's proposal. -- Stevie Strickland| 325912 Georgia Tech Station [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Georgia Institute of Technology http://kelewan.debian.net/~sstrickl | Atlanta, GA 30332 Official Debian GNU/Linux Developer | CS 2130 TA -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:30:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Please remember to GPG-sign your seconds! Stevie Strickland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did. Looked like a valid RFC 2015 message to me and mutt, at least... -- G. Branden Robinson | I came, I saw, she conquered. The Debian GNU/Linux| original Latin seems to have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | garbled. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgp070sSHVCIL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
Yeah, I ran into the same GNUS bug that someone else did -- namely that it blindly deletes PGPMIME parts from a message, making it look like there was no sig... Sigh. Its older MIME handling was a lot better. Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:30:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Please remember to GPG-sign your seconds! Stevie Strickland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did. Looked like a valid RFC 2015 message to me and mutt, at least... -- G. Branden Robinson | I came, I saw, she conquered. The Debian GNU/Linux| original Latin seems to have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | garbled. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED]
