Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > > votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing > >

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:39:50PM -0800]: > Bill Allombert writes: > > > Much less, because there have been other laws proposal that could affect > > us and we have never put out a similar statement so nobody should expect > > Debian to make one now. Yes. We did discuss on the

Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL

Bill Allombert dijo [Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 10:33:34AM +]: > > > I offer the following ballot option for your consideration. > > > > > > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > > > > > The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of > > > issuing > > > a Public

Re: Amendment to the original proposal (was: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive")

Thank you very much Santiago! I am not sure whether your seconders must also second the amended version, but I reviewed it, and agree with the proposed changes (none of which seem to alter IMO the intent of the document). Thus, re-seconded. Santiago Ruano Rincón dijo [Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

Hello Bart, Bart Martens dijo [Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100]: > Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002 > as a separate proposal. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion! As I said in another thread, I believe that in a voting system such as the one

Re: This does not have to be a GR

Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100]: > Dear Debian voters, > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary for Debian > to issue such statement, and I am quite unconvinced the GR

Re: Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

Santiago Ruano Rincón dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:15:40PM -0300]: > > > I second adding this version to the vote > > > > I'm getting a bad signature on this. > > > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 00:22, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at

Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

Aigars Mahinovs dijo [Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:46:06PM +0100]: > By now the EU is actually quite used to dealing with volunteer > projects and open source projects in general. So they would not be > surprised in the slightest. And I do not believe it would tarnish > the image of Debian. > > A lot

Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

We discussed the text quoted below (that is, the full text that Santiago just sent), and I find its wide discussion and, at least, understanding of utmost importance to the free software community as a whole. I wholeheartedly second the call for votes with this text. Santiago Ruano Rincón dijo

Re: new proposal: free and and non-free installers with SC change

Holger Levsen dijo [Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 03:00:26PM +]: > hi, > > I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like > proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image. > > Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable > Debian installer images, for those

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:52:46AM -0700]: > If we happen to fall down this leg of the Trousers of Time, I would be > inclined to explicitly reinstate option A in any SC ballot options that > would make A consistent with the SC as revised. > > In practice, I think this specific

Re: Status of proposal E (SC change + non-free-firmware in installer)

Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 01:38:59PM -0700]: > Hi all, > > Moving this into a separate thread from all the discussion for a bit more > visibility. > > Thank you for all the discussion over the past couple of days about my > proposal and about possible rewordings to point 5 of the

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:00:40PM +0200]: > > > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they > > > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not > > > require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide > > > not to

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:41:59AM -0700]: > The phrasing of the constitution here is that the 2:1 majority is required > for decisions that are authorized by the powers of the Technical > Committee, and I think this sort of policy decision about how to handle > non-free software

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:38:13PM -0700]: > > If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I > > agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed. > > I'm not Kurt, but I think A.1.3 applies here: > > The proposer of a ballot option may

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Antoine Beaupré dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400]: > > Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak > > support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see > > [4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed > > yet to make use of

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:29:28PM +0200]: > > >> >What's the rationale for this one? > > >> > > > >> >I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable > > >> >the non-free-firmware component if the installer determines that > > >> >packages from that

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Bart Martens dijo [Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:59:44AM +0200]: > > > If you mean official media, this is more radical than Steve's proposal. > > > It would permit arbitrary non-free packages as long as users were > > > informed. > > > > > > If you mean unofficial media - that's the status quo. In

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Gard Spreemann dijo [Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 08:58:47AM +0200]: > On August 23, 2022 5:38:52 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Josefsson > wrote: > > I have no problem > >with builtin non-upgradeable firmware -- see > >https://ryf.fsf.org/about/criteria for rationale. > Hi! > > I've always had a really hard

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:10:49AM +0200]: > IIRC the "official" thing came in because someone produced a CD for a > magazine cover for some early release (1.2 maybe?) that was actually > slightly pre-release, 1.0, no less. With all the magic that 1.0 implies. > because their

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Simon Josefsson dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:57:36PM +0200]: > > I find that if I assume the DSC points are unordered, and numbered only > > for reference, then there's sentences in there that support the offering > > of official images including firmware by default, even while considering > >

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Ansgar dijo [Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 06:24:40PM +0200]: > I don't think everyone can affort the energy (in)efficiency of a decade > old hardware. Most users will also have more recent hardware; I don't > know much 10+ years hardware still in productive use... > > Either way, such ancient hardware is

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Vincent Bernat dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:46:56PM +0200]: > Back to the vote, another option would be to not consider firmware (not > running on the CPU) as software and we keep the 100% free software images > with non-free firmware included. This implies this new component should only >

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Theodore Ts'o dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 04:13:20PM -0400]: > Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have > proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority", > whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or > FAQ's, external to

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal. I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the later more prominent. = We will include

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]: > > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the > > > "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official > > > media (installer images and live images). > > > ... > > > We will publish these images as

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Hello Simon, Simon Richter dijo [Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:34:10PM +0200]: > > I don't see a difference between having non-free files in the archive > > and non-free files on the installation images. If having individual > > non-free files was not acceptable then we would have to define the > >

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Steve McIntyre dijo [Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100]: > (...) > So, I propose the following: > > = > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the > "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official > media (installer images and live

Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine

Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 12:52:31PM +0200]: > > Hmm, debconf.org says "Copyright Software in the Public Interest, > > Inc", but there is no imprint or anything. DebConf as such is not > > listed as a separate project on https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/; of > > course it

Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine

_do_ consider some geopolitical issues when choosing a DebConf venue, such as the ability to obtain visas or the risk it would pose to our attendees (i.e. countries where homosexuality is forbidden). But we do not "choose sides" nor endorse any government or such entity. - Gunnar Wolf DebConf Committee member signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects

Felix Lechner dijo [Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 06:49:50AM -0700]: > Hi Gunnar, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > This year I think I will break my usual > > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ > > With that stateme

Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:56:15PM -0400]: > > > If a Debian contributor > > > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > > > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? > > > > Did the project provide assistance to you, and do

Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting

Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:13:48PM -0500]: > (...) > > If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the > > discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also: Amend > > A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via an > >

Re: Reaffirm public voting

Stefano Rivera dijo [Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:27:45PM +]: > Hi Holger (2022.03.04_10:42:51_+) > > And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which > > is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot, > > and not only as "NOTA", but as a real

Re: Reaffirm public voting

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL dijo [Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100]: > Hi, > > I think we can establish a limitation between "secret" and "wiser > secret". I can understand that making vote transparent and secret is > likely not possible. And I am not sure that it is the purpose. The > purpose is

Re: Reaffirm public voting

I know Holger's and Bill's proposed options are prone to change and merge, but I'll say it now and probably reaffirm it later: I second this option. While I prefer Harlan's, it has failed to gain sponsors, and I don't want to risk the complete loss of public votes in Debian. I think the

Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting

Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:34:56AM +0100]: > Does this not force people that would like to keep their vote secret to > publish that fact in order for it to happen (which might well hint > strongly at how they are likely to vote)? Might be. But people feeling any pressure due to

Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting

I hereby second Harlan's option. Thanks a lot for taking the word for writing it down and presenting the rationale! Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:43:20PM -0500]: > On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I propose the following ballot

Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification

Russ Allbery dijo [Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:17:10AM -0800]: > > Suppose no other options are present. Judit's option wins, yours is > > second, and NotA is third. A simplistic reading would mean, "merge > > Judit's proposed changes in the constitution". However, more people > > voted 3 and 4 above

Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification

Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:20:49PM -0700]: > > "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr writes: > > Yes, I think 3) and 4) are much more important in hidden votes. If this is right, Sam, let me politely ask you to unbundle. Not only due to Martin's argument (the scar of "editorial

Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL dijo [Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:20:31PM +0100]: > > > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public, > > > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be > > > to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?

Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public

Philip Hands dijo [Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:36:29AM +0100]: > > Do we have any evidence that either thing happened? > > Also, it seems to me that the problem we're considering is that toxic > people who are not really interested in Debian at all, might stumble > across Debian voting results, and

Re: General Resolution: Change the resolution process: results

Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:44:16AM -0800]: > As the person proposing this GR, I think that's a perfectly reasonable > stance to take, and to be quite honest one of my goals was to *not* give > people a (negative) motivation to feel like they have to be involved. My > explicit goal

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800]: > > I was under the impression that this amendment by the original > > proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is > > implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong? > > > (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

Thanks, Russ. Seconded. Russ Allbery dijo [Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800]: > Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal > amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None > of the above" and fixes two typos. > > > Rationale >

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800]: > >>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution. > >> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option > >> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer > >>

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

Jonathan Carter dijo [Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 06:43:27PM +0200]: > Ah, I also had one, but can wait my turn. I considered starting a thread in > -project in the meantime, but I'm slightly concerned of information overload > between a large discussion on -project and a running vote. > > Not to

Re: What does FD Mean

Sam Hartman dijo [Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:12:31AM -0400]: > I'd support revising the instructions to recommend that voters rank all > options on the ballot. > > I don't support mandating it. > If someone doesn't rank an option I'd rather accept a ballot than reject > it. > If someone wrote a

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:38:24PM +0200]: > The option has been committed to the website, it should appear soon. Thanks, Kurt. The vote is now in progress, and it does include this option. I just felt needed to state that I didn't include it in my call for vote because, early

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

Nicolas Dandrimont dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:27:48PM +0200]: > > (...) > > [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io > > (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal) > > > > [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies > > (proposed by

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:29:06AM +0200]: > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:06:49AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Dear Debian Project Secretary, > > > > Given the DPL authorized a shortened discussion period, and that, while > > said discussion period allowed

Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 08:56:33AM +0200]: > There is also this in 4.2: > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. > > The DPL changed

Re: Announcing new decision making procedures for Debian

Santiago R.R. dijo [Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 10:11:54AM +0200]: > > > * A developer proposes an issue with a signed message on > > >debian-vote@lists.debian.org . > > > > > > * Anyone can express their consent or dissent by replying to the > > >message. > > > > > > * When the discussion

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

I second the following quoted text. Sruthi Chandran dijo [Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530]: > > On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > > > > > Dear fellow DDs, > > > > Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :) > > > Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

Michael Biebl dijo [Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:08:36PM +0100]: > ---8<---8<---8<--- > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not. > > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the >

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

Daniel Lenharo dijo [Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:14:47AM -0300]: > > so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and > > with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can > > easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? > > If we have a GR, that most of

Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter

Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:19:09PM -0400]: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit

Willingness to share a position statement?

Hello, I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and confidence-shattering for many of us. Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more,

Re: How to leverage money to accomplish high impact Debian projects

Jonathan Carter dijo [Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:16:15PM +0200]: > On 2021/03/18 19:46, Raphael Hertzog wrote:> I announced this on > debian-project[1] and on Planet Debian[2] a while ago. > > But at this point, we have only funded a single project[3], leaving us > > with more than 25 KEUR available

Re: What changes do you want in Debian?

Raphael Hertzog dijo [Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:13:54AM +0100]: > Dear Debian DPL candidates, Nobody is addressing me, but it's a long-held tradition that we all jump to whatever mailing list posts that in some way itches us ;-) > when I look back at my old platforms[1][2]3] I can already see a

Re: [draft] Cancel this year's in-person Debian Developers Conference DebConf20

ing the work sounds somewhat entering the room and kicking the table. Please, don't. Cordially, - Gunnar Wolf. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?

Jonathan Carter dijo [Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 03:28:21PM +0200]: > Done. > > > The kind of discussions that we have in debian-vote is very much suited > > for something like discourse where we can +1 with like, etc. > > > > I would encourage others DD asking questions to try to use discourse and >

Re: Please hold your questions...

Louis-Philippe Véronneau dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:10:31PM -0400]: > I'm not sure what this is then? > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/ Uh... Er... Oh... OK, I stand corrected. Please, excuse my mail. (where was this announced? My bad, for sure!) signature.asc Description:

Please hold your questions...

Hello all, While I have started to read the questions to the candidates with enthusiasm, I'd like to point something out: Jonathan's and Brian's nomination mails _can_be_seen_as_ a platform, but they are nor (and I don't know if they intend to refine them to be a platform. Sruthi has not yet

Re: DDs with no key in the keyring [was: Please include unique voters in GR graphs]

Mattia Rizzolo dijo [Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 06:19:27PM +0100]: > > > i.e. the only accepted "investigation" > > > method, likewise take a ton of time (and the fairly limited amount of > > > empathy from the people doing it). > > > > You have all my sympathy and respect for doing what you do! :) >

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]: > Ian, please don't. Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this proposal by Ian to proceed, the "reasoning" paragraph that followed is not r

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ] Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's > proposal. I need a few more days

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity" [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 04:19:25PM +]: > Chris Lamb writes ("Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""): > Enrico writes: > > Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/ > > I support this proposal. Thanks, Ian (and thanks, Enrico, and thanks,

Re: CFV Timing and length of voting period

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 06:31:11PM +0100]: > > > One question. Should I extend the voting period to give people more > > > time to vote given that holidays are near. I'm not sure it would help > > > much because I think the primary effect of doing that would be to extend > > > the

Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader election 2019: First call for votes)

Hi, FWIW, I already sent Mathias a private mail about this, as he also asked this privately :) But this seems to be of general interest, so... > (...) > > *Usually* they do not do that during running elections, just short before > > they start, > > so you may be out of luck. > > If so then I

Re: having public irc logs?

Mehdi Dogguy dijo [Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 09:47:38AM +0200]: > To be honest, I also wondered why IRC channels were not logged when I > started contributing to Debian. Later, I understood that people used > IRC to communicate like they would do in real life. As such, we will > not try to record every

Re: Question for DPL candidates: Teetotaler outreach

Adrian Bunk dijo [Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 06:10:41PM +0300]: > When something is advertised as "beersigning" on a Debian mailing list, > what non-alcoholic beverages can one expect to be available at the venue? Hi Adrian, I understand you want to raise awareness about this issue, as consciousness

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

Sean Whitton dijo [Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:08:19PM -0700]: > Title: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3 > (...) I have been following this thread, and although four days might not seem like a long time, I feel that me comenting here is due. In this thread, Martin Bagge

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:09:37PM +0200]: > Can I say that this is rather annoying from a procedural stand > point? You already called for a vote. I'm sorry, I did this precisely to avoid an annoying procedural standstill. And (as I told you privately) later found out the

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It currently has four seconders only, so in order to have the three presented options in the ballot: >

Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

[ Amazing as it might seem for this issue, I forgot to sign my mail. Here it is again. Apologies for the duplication ] Debian Project Secretary, It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to the debian-vote mailing list, containing the text that follows: [1] Message-ID:

Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Debian Project Secretary, It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to the debian-vote mailing list, containing the text that follows: [1] Message-ID: <20160902041505.gd3...@gwolf.org> === BEGIN GR TEXT === Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. 1.

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:45:40PM +0100]: > > > > ProponentIs declassification of How might the rules > > > > old posts permissible, for -private be changed > > > > and if so how ? in the future ? > > > > > > > >

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:25:49PM +0100]: > Oh, I forgot one: > > > ProponentIs declassification of How might the rules > > old posts permissible, for -private be changed > > and if so how ? in the future ? > > > >

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Bas Wijnen dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:47:36PM +]: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even > > this. > > That is not

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:50:51PM +0200]: > > Anyway, I do clearly see value in having your proposal as part of the > > ballot (as well as Iain's, if he pushes it on and makes it a formal > > proposal. I will call for a vote... Say, by Friday. Meanwhile, we have > > some time to

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:03:17PM +0100]: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private > (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > > I assumed it was, was planning on asking, and with this message > > I'm happy to treat

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:21:14PM +0100]: > I'm afraid I don't agree. As I have said, I am unhappy with any > option which does not clearly state what if any authority there is for > (or prohibition there is of) declassification of -private. I have > come to this view because it

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:23:31PM +0100]: > > > Do I need to re-make my proposal as an amendment to Gunnar's or are > > > you happy to treat it as such ? > > > > FWIW I think we will be better off if we have it as a distinct option > > (as it is semantically quite different). > >

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:43:43PM +0100]: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private > (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > > So that proposal has 5 seconds now, and so is accepted. > > Do I need to re-make my

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

I second Ian's proposal, *without* withdrawing my own. Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:27:42PM +0100]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > I have changed my about waiting before making a formal proposal. > > I hereby propose the following General Resolution. > >

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:44:07PM +0100]: > Gunnar Wolf writes ("Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification > of the debian-private mailing list"): > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private li

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:27PM +0100]: > For me the ethical basis for this is that people who have posted > messages to -private did so (and continue to do so) on the basis of > the policy in force at the time when they decided to send their > message. It is the policy in force

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

David Kalnischkies dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:40:41PM +0200]: > Just to ensure we talk about the same: I was referring to: > https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-private.png vs e.g. > https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-vote.png . > > I would be very interested in an explanation [off-list &

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Micha Lenk dijo [Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:53:52AM +0200]: > TL,DR: Nice proposal, seconded. Please note that Ian answered to a post, did not yet make a GR proposal. What IMHO should happen is that we have more than a binary GR. That is, I believe that, if there is a GR with the text I copied from

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:07:47PM +0100]: > (...) > So, how about something like this: > > Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private > > 1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005 > General Resolution titled "Declassification of

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

Lars Wirzenius dijo [Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:27:31AM +0300]: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:15:05PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private > >list archives" is repealed. > > If we're going to have an

Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

. 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. === END GR TEXT === Thanks for your consideration, -- Gunnar Wolf (with thanks to Nicolas for

Re: more GRs to come (Re: Current GRs clarification)

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:40:06AM +0200]: > Hi Holger, > > Le lundi, 8 août 2016, 13.34:07 h CEST Holger Levsen a écrit : > > So, I hereby announce that I'll propose another GR to "depeal the GR > > of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

Ansgar Burchardt dijo [Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 02:40:44PM +0200]: > >> Luckily there's an awesome non-gendered and non-furnitured alternative: > >> > >> President > > > > Point is, the TC is constitutionally only about half-surrogating > > MIA DPLs and breaking ties. The non-constitutional part of

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

Nikolaus Rath dijo [Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 04:41:15PM -0700]: > On Jul 22 2016, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Lionel Elie Mamane [2016-07-22 12:14 +0200]: > >> Since Debian is an international project, with many (I expect a > >> majority but am too

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

Lionel Elie Mamane dijo [Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:16:22PM +0200]: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > > I'd rather you asked me for a signed agreement in triplicate before > > taking it out of the debian-private debian-developer-only archives to > > quote/post

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

Wouter Verhelst dijo [Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:15:57AM +0200]: > Hi Marga, > > I second this amendment, although it introduces a minor awkwardness: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > > - The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman; > > + The Technical

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:58:34PM +0200]: > I would like to propose the following amendment to Marga's GR: > > In addition to the proposed change, the project shall vote to > empower the DPL together with the Project Secretary to make minor > editorial changes in our

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

Margarita Manterola dijo [Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200]: > I'm therefore proposing the following General Resolution: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with

  1   2   >