* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
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
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
bit out; for this reason,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the
Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard Resolution Procedures which
allows this to be
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
just missed it.)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
just
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I believe this only applies
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the
*other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one.
(I may have just missed it.)
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of
the Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 20:18, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring
the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how
the DFSG is applied. You are accusing them of breaking an oath or
promise, and
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can
tell, there isn't, apart from application to
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were
proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 23:38, Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org wrote:
I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of
ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their
interpretation of how the DFSG is applied.
I think you are talking about me here. I haven't
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the
secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an
amendment so far as I can tell.
It says according to
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
requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
of the SC and the
- Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are
explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement
about their interpretation.
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
- Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents
are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
- Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents
are
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any
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 requiring a developer statement about the
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
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
requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
of the SC and the DFSG to
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
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 requiring a developer statement about the project's sense
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]:
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
