Hi,
This is the first call for votes for the General Resolution about
init systems and systemd.
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd.
This vote is being
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 22:50:32 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> That's 5, I'll update everything.
Thanks for this Kurt! Much appreciated!
Regards,
Guillem
Quoting Kurt Roeckx (2019-12-06 23:06:28)
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:50:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > That's 5, I'll update everything.
>
> The website should be updated very soon.
Thanks a lot, Kurt!
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:51:50PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
>
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very clear
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:50:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> That's 5, I'll update everything.
The website should be updated very soon.
Kurt
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is a new draft ballot:
>
> Here is a new one:
And even a newer one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:51:50PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> X<
> Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> Principles
> ~~
>
> The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates different
On Friday, December 6, 2019 3:59:43 PM EST Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> > given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> >
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:48:48PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Seconded.
That's 5, I'll update everything.
Kurt
On Friday, December 6, 2019 3:51:50 PM EST Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
>
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very
> X<
> Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> Principles
> ~~
>
> The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
> functionality, with
Hi
On 2019/12/06 22:51, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
>
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very clear to me whether
* Guillem Jover: " Option G update [signed] (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our
commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)" (Fri, 6 Dec
2019 21:51:50 +0100):
> [ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
>
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
>
[ Sorry, resending signed this time around. :/ ]
Hi!
Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
Secretary, and what
[ dropping all recipients except debian-vote@l.d.o ]
Quoting Guillem Jover (2019-12-06 21:04:39)
> X<
> Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple
> implementations
>
> Principles
> ~~
>
> The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
Hi!
Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
Secretary, and what would be the actual procedure to replace the existing
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new draft ballot:
Here is a new one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> It doesn't count lines from the start, or anything like that.
> So yes, I think it works the way we would hope.
Note that the checking of the "title" is not very good:
# Checking the whole damned line was creating too many false positives
#
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
> it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
> look at the source.
The vote.d.o page had a link to this
https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/devotee.git/
which I looked
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 13:18:06 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I already started yesterday to try to structure and organize my
> thoughts on how I'd express this. I do have today packed until later
> this evening, so I think it's unrealisting that I can propose anything
> today. I hope to have
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I support Ian. I do not second yet because I think the secretary has
> ruled it out of order.
My procedural proposal is withdrawn, because the condition for doing
so (what is now H appearing on the ballot) has been met. So
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> > * c the HTML from proposal D
> > * Adding the new title
> > * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c the
2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman :
> And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
> wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
> ways.
This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose.
I support Ian. I do not second yet
24 matches
Mail list logo
