2:1 supermajority.
Gerardo Ballabio
Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I can understand that you want the candidate's opinion on this (after
all it's important for a lot of people to chose someone with whom one
shares values)
Yes, that's why I asked. One candidate already answered and I hope the
other one will also share her opinions.
Andreas Tille wrote:
> > How would you as a DPL try to lead a community that focuses on producing a
> > great distribution without getting divided on controversial topics?
>
> I'm not really sure in how far you consider the first statement relevant
to the question. If your focus is on political
Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Our priorities are our users and Free Software" means that, in our decision
making and our governance we should be oriented FIRST towards users and do
what is good for the people who are using our software; and that our SECOND
priority, only when not in conflict in the
Sam Hartman wrote:
> Personally, I don't know if those are important enough to vote on unless
they are attached to something else.
I understand your point, but I'd still prefer that uncorrelated issues
be discussed and voted separately.
And since the Debian Constitution is such an important
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I also think this system makes the voting process more open to procedural
manipulation than my proposal (although this is more a gut feeling than
anything concrete, and it's arguable), and essentially forecloses the
project's ability to take any timely action without
Sam Hartman wrote:
> it clearly would be an abuse if some privileged category of people got to
> choose the ballot options.
Hello Sam,
I'm struggling to understand your concern here.
Is it just an abstract concern or do you have in mind some specific
scenario in which that could happen?
As far
Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> That said, let's escalate your example a bit
"Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an
example of criminal behavior. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject
of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for
expressing their
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> what people say and do around us. We're not a government.
So only governments should not discriminate people?
> Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which
> country?) has any bearing
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Do we really have to go through this argument *again*?
I didn't start this discussion.
> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences.
The point is who decides what the consequences are.
That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of
Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as
> equally valid.
Equally valid -- no.
Legitimate to express -- yes.
I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to
Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting"
(I see that because of my mistake, this thread continued on both
-project and -vote. If you think it's better to restrict it to either
list, please say so.)
Hello Sam and others,
I did not want to derail the discussion. As I wrote, I made those
examples because I believed that they would help
Sorry, I just realized I sent this to the wrong list. It was for
-vote actually.
Gerardo
Il giorno gio 12 dic 2019 alle ore 11:22 Gerardo Ballabio
ha scritto:
>
> Sam, thank you very much for raising this issue and for recognizing
> that there's more than one angle to it.
>
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that he
plans to start the vote on the
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free,
hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white?
It is non-white.
PS: excluding
If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free,
hence
non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white?
It is non-white.
PS: excluding
16 matches
Mail list logo
