Hi,
On Freitag, 11. März 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
A mudslinging party is not something to aim for.
Right.
But if it turns out
that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within
Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion, then
having an
Joachim Breitner wrote:
A mudslinging party is not something to aim for. But if it turns out
that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within
Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion,
then having an intense debate over these issue within the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:10:12AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Absolutly. But I also absolutly dont see, why this has to turn into a
mudslinging party. One can disagree very much and very fiercly,
without mudslinging. At least thats what I expect from people
running for DPL.
Agreed, thanks
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:27:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
/me, fearing more and more that he'll have to throw mud at himself
If you end up being the whole candidate, it could be interesting to turn
'talk about the platform' into a 'talk about how to improve on last year
(if at all
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:16:41AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
A mudslinging party is not something to aim for. But if it turns out
that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within
Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion,
then
Hi,
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general
resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be
difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular
proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy
thread on
Matthew Vernon wrote:
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general
resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be
difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular
proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general
resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be
difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular
proposal, unless you have the time to wade
On 11/03/11 15:18, Martin Bagge / brother wrote:
On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote:
Won't this require a GR to put it into force?
Probably. Is that in it self a problem
Depends, Recursion is never really a good thing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote:
Won't this require a GR to put it into force?
Probably. Is that in it self a problem?
--
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Le vendredi 11 mars 2011 à 13:29 +, Martin Meredith a écrit :
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general
resolutions had a Rationale with them.
Won't this require a GR to put it into force?
What is the rationale for
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Matthew Vernon wrote:
In the interests of fairness, those opposed to a proposal but not
wishing to amend it should also be allowed a rationale. My
suggestion here would be that A set of DDs (equivalent to the
requirement for amendments) could have an opposing rationale
Martin Meredith m...@debian.org writes:
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[snip my proposal]
Won't this require a GR to put it into force?
I think so, yes. But I thought I'd gather opinions and refine it a bit
first.
Regards,
Matthew
--
At least you know where you are with
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
If you end up being the whole candidate, it could be interesting to turn
'talk about the platform' into a 'talk about how to improve on last year
(if at all possible)'.
Yes. We would like to know zack's 'evil' plan for
14 matches
Mail list logo
