On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
again. To avoid
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
I also believe that the secretary should have the power
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
Hmm, I thought you were going to
On Sat Mar 14 12:51, Luk Claes wrote:
Hmm, I thought the reason we delayed it till after the release is so we
could discuss things and only when we have a consensus to change or seem
to have clear options, to get to a vote.
As I saw your name mentioned next to the constitutional issues, I
Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Steve, Luk and Stefano,
Hi Charles
thank you very much for the time and efforts you are proposing to dedicate to
the Project !
Our Consitution suggests a stronger leadership of the DPL the discussions:
9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
The
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents,
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
Positions (in no particular order):
1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't
matter
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option that doesn't do so. So that would be option 2
On Sat Mar 14 12:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a
3:1 majority. This is true
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Sat Mar 14 12:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that
Foundation Document does not modify the document and therefore does
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
Positions (in no particular order):
1 The supermajority
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the
vote proceeds. Such overrides require a 3:1
13 matches
Mail list logo
