In reading your messages, I think I have the same position as you, but
I'm confused by our different tentative rankings.
On 9/12/22 15:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
For full disclosure, my vote is likely E>B>C>A>NOTA>D.)
I agree insofar as: E > B > C > NOTA > D
I put A in a different spot: A > B >
On 9/11/22 19:41, Steve McIntyre wrote:
As far as many vendors are concerned, the firmware blobs are
basically part of the hardware. They're just provided in a cheaper,
more flexible way - loading things at runtime.
To me, this is an important part of the situation we find ourselves in.
It seems
On 9/8/22 00:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more
concise:
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
do not conform to the Debian Free S
I like the existence of such an option.
Seconded.
The Project Leader has extended the discussion period (at least the
maximum, maybe it's ambiguous on an extension of the minimum, but that
is likely moot) by 7 days. By my reading of the constitution, this only
extends the possible maximum. To
On 9/6/22 01:09, Ansgar wrote:
You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images,
and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even
say that they have made decisions. So those options could be seen as
overriding a Developer, using the power of the Techn
On 9/4/22 14:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm not sure that a GR should say what the interpretation of a document
should be. I really prefer that the document is changed instead so that
it's more clear on what it says.
I agree with "prefer", but I can't bring myself to say "require
[amendment]" or "
On 9/4/22 14:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Please note that the current discussion period ends the 7th, the maximum
discussion period is the 8th, which probably means I'll start the vote
the 9th or the 10th, and I think we're not actually going to be ready to
have all options like we want them by then.
On 8/30/22 12:00, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:27:46AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
Regardless of that, and probably more importantly, I object to the idea that
a GR option winning could result in the whole GR being voided. Our voting
system is explicitly designed to take into
On 8/29/22 16:02, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
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 include an option that might conflict, or put
On 3/27/22 11:14, Jonathan Carter wrote:
The only cases of waste I know of happens when people ask for
sponsorship for DebConf and then hotel space is made for them (and
possibly other expenses) and then they just don't show up without any
heads-up. Even those are rare, but it's the only instan
On 3/24/22 19:18, Felix Lechner wrote:
For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help
operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I
didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for
more information, with which I complied) even
On 3/24/22 15:45, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Richard" == Richard Laager writes:
Richard> On 3/20/22 07:10, Felix Lechner wrote:
>> If we accidentally formed a General Partnership, as has been
>> suggested elsewhere
Richard> Yes, that would be really
On 3/20/22 07:10, Felix Lechner wrote:
If we accidentally formed a General Partnership, as has been suggested
elsewhere
Yes, that would be really dumb for a number of reasons.
I have friends who are or were high-ranking officials at the UN. With
the project's permission, I might explore findi
On 3/20/22 11:58, Felix Lechner wrote:
I would not be comfortable granting
financial requests, other than on an emergency basis, without some
type of community review.
The disbursements that I've heard about seem to be relatively "small
potatoes" things. Is there some huge wasteful spending oc
On 3/18/22 10:23, Felix Lechner wrote:
I hope instead to devolve the
concentration of power from my office into an open and transparent
system of boards and commissions
This is a complex topic, but in broad strokes, the concept of having
more people involved seems reasonable to me. But I fear th
On 3/4/22 18:28, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
In practice, the way that I would like to see this work is that a
ballot option is proposed with no content other than turning the
ballot to a secret option. Then people can, regardless of their
position on the issue, second that ballot option to avo
On 2/25/22 09:06, Sam Hartman wrote:
2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works.
This feels almost like a tautology of sorts... you'
Your secret ballots proposal had some other procedural housekeeping bits
in it, like dealing with overrides for the secretary. How do you feel
about the consensus on that?
--
Richard
On 2/14/22 09:53, Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve certainly found feedback he got to be harassment.
I did as well.
I received some harassment (not a lot, but some) over this too. My
recollection is this was coming from non-DDs.
Given the levels of harassment that others were talking about at the
t
Your proposal seems fine at first glance. I would prefer to see this
handled as a separate GR. If they don't conflict textually, you could
run them in parallel, but honestly I'd prefer to see them run in series.
A few more weeks of delay doesn't seem to be a problem for this topic.
--
Richard
On 10/24/21 2:01 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
6. The project leader may, at any point in the process, set the
discussion period to any length between 1 and 3 weeks, except that
they may not do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end
within 48 hours of when this change is ma
On 10/23/21 1:49 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I agree that if a sufficient part of the project wants to continue the
discussion, we should be able to do that.
I just don't see how to accomplish that in a way that is better than
what Russ proposes without being open to abuse.
I think a great next step
In general, I understand the reasoning for having an option for longer
discussions. However, I see risks too.
On 10/22/21 12:42 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
a vote to recall the project leader.
This is an interesting corner case. I don't think it needs a special
case under the current situatio
First off, let me say I have no objections to your positions on this.
Also, I'm honestly not trying to argue in circles. I'm specifically
trying to confine my replies to only newly presented issues.
On 10/10/21 1:41 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
This wouldn't change anything if the TC vote result is
On 10/5/21 11:04 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
One minor clarification: I was thinking about removing the 2:1 *override*
requirement, but I don't think we should remove the 2:1 *make*
requirement.
Part of the discussion about the TC was that they might deadlock on
_which_ option to choose, which the
One concern I have about eliminating the 2:1 majority for a GR to
make/override a TC decision is that it might encourage things to move to
a GR unnecessarily.
A second is that it might encourage things to move to a GR too soon.
Having the TC hear something and hash out options in a smaller gro
Thank you for the clarifications.
On 9/28/21 11:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
3. Another TC member calls a vote, possibly immediately after making some
last minute change to the ballot (which is allowed).
If I understand correctly, the updated GR process handles this
differently, by extending t
First off, thank you for working on this!
On 9/27/21 8:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
6. If voting is started prior to two weeks after the original proposal
via a call for a vote by a member of the Technical Committee, but
another member of the Technical Committee objects more than
On 3/31/21 1:20 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 08:13:59PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which
reinstated him, to consider their positions.
Can you elaborate on
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS:
This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with
our constitution, section 4.1.5.
The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation
are, and should be, held to the highest standards
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS:
This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with
our constitution, section 4.1.5.
The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation
are, and should be, held to the highest standards
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which
reinstated him, to consider their positions.
Can you elaborate on the intended meaning here? Is "position" their
position to reinstate RMS, or their position as a member of the boa
On 3/26/21 7:09 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Perhaps said another way, the only valid reason for directing a bunch of
attention toward the FSF is if they are worth salvaging. Plenty of
comments in the last few days seem to indicate that such might not be
the case. Why not form a new organizati
On 3/26/21 1:47 PM, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
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 link with
gnusocial link.
Begin text
Under section 4.1.5 of the con
[Hopefully signed this time for the record. Sorry for the noise.]
Seeking seconds:
===BEGIN
Replace the entire text with:
Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:
The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman fr
On 3/26/21 3:19 AM, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
---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) is free to issue such statements or
(co-)sign any open let
Seeking seconds:
===BEGIN
Replace the entire text with:
Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:
The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
we believ
37 matches
Mail list logo
