Re: Question to all voters: Is team upload in some example case OK? (Was: Question to all candidates: What are your technical goals)

On April 4, 2024 12:59:34 PM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote: >Hi Scott, > >Am Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:42:11PM + schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> I'm interested to understand what you think this has to do with the DPL >> election or the role of the DPL within the project? >

Re: Question to all voters: Is team upload in some example case OK? (Was: Question to all candidates: What are your technical goals)

On April 4, 2024 12:32:45 PM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote: >Hi, > >in the light of the previous discussion I have a question to all voters. >Due to bug #1066377 more than 30 testing removal warnings hit my mailbox >today (I stopped counting after 30). While the Debian Med package >clustalo is the

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

On November 13, 2023 12:29:20 PM UTC, "Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer" wrote: >On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 07:55, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: >[snip] >> Even regardless of the specific legal wording in the legislation itself, the >> point 10 >> of the preamble would be enough to to fix any "bug"

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

On November 12, 2023 5:09:26 PM UTC, Luca Boccassi wrote: >On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 15:10, Santiago Ruano Rincón > wrote: >> >> Dear Debian Fellows, >> >> Following the email sent by Ilu to debian-project (Message-ID: >> <4b93ed08-f148-4c7f-b172-f967f7de7...@gmx.net>), and as we have >>

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

On September 12, 2022 8:23:22 PM UTC, Bill Allombert wrote: >Le Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 08:19:26AM +0200, Simon Josefsson a écrit : >> The problem is caused by hardware manufacturer chosing to require >> non-free works for their use. The blame for that choice lies on the >> hardware

Re: General Resolution: Liquidate donated assets as soon as possible

On June 19, 2022 7:03:00 PM UTC, Micha Lenk wrote: >Hi Antoine, > >Am 19.06.22 um 19:31 schrieb Antoine Beaupré: >> I second this GR. >> I understand people might not *agree* with it, but I still think it's >> worth discussing it more, especially in the open. > >For discussing things, whether

Re: General Resolution: Liquidate donated assets as soon as possible

On June 19, 2022 2:40:01 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >Someone pointed out "assets" is very broad, and that would include >things like hardware donations (something I don't think would be wise). > >I would hereby like to amend my proposal by replacing "assets" by >"financial

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

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 6:22:00 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes: > Judit> Give the opportunity to vote for secret voting without > Judit> needing to additionally vote for unrelated/only slightly > Judit> related constitution changes; for

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

Seconded/sponsored. Scott K On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:44:34 PM EST Judit Foglszinger wrote: > I propose a ballot option for the GR > "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote" > that makes the following changes to the constitution. > > 1) Do not make the identity of a

Re: Renaming the FTP Masters

On November 3, 2021 9:27:08 PM UTC, Felix Lechner wrote: >Hi, > >I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General Resolution. > >Since the murder of George Floyd, the average fate of Black lives has >received much attention. Even the tech sector picked up the >"master/slave"

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

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:12:21 AM EDT Bdale Garbee wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > It's almost like this discussion about a GR was a premature waste of > > everyone's time. > > It's also possible that discussion about a possible GR influenced the > ultimate

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

On Monday, June 1, 2020 6:12:30 PM EDT Ivo De Decker wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/22/20 2:43 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:40:55PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > >> This is a draft for a GR I would like to propose. > >> > >> Cancel this year's in-person Debian Developers

Re: What does Israel/Local Authorities say about DC20?

On Friday, May 22, 2020 12:43:56 PM EDT Sam Hartman wrote: > [I hope someone on the DebConf team side is willing to summarize the > results of this discussion to debian-vote] > > > "Stefano" == Stefano Rivera writes: > Stefano> Hi Sam (2020.05.22_14:51:42_+) > > >> The

Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue

On Friday, March 27, 2020 9:37:28 AM EDT Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/03/20 at 09:23 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, March 27, 2020 8:40:11 AM EDT Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 27/03/20 at 12:23 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > > > At least during m

Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue

On Friday, March 27, 2020 8:40:11 AM EDT Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/03/20 at 12:23 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > At least during my many years of Ubuntu archive administration I've > > actually seen quite a lot of packages which contained non-distributable > > files, had hilariously broken

Re: Question to Brian: why not submit your plan for a Debian Foundation to a GR ?

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 6:41:42 PM EDT Brian Gupta wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:57:55AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > * Louis-Philippe Véronneau [2020-03-18 12:52]: > > > > Would you care to elaborate on what "the Yorba

Re: What are your thoughts on discourse?

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 9:28:21 AM EDT Jonathan Carter wrote: > Hi Raphaël > > On 2020/03/18 12:00, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I would like all the candidates to reply to this question on discourse: > > https://discourse.debian.net/t/dear-dpl-candidates-what-are-your-thoughts-> > > >

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

On December 12, 2019 2:57:55 PM UTC, Ian Jackson wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the >CoC"): >> I think you reinforce my original point. In this case, the 'other >> side' isn't the proposer of the option, it's me. >> &

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

On December 12, 2019 3:01:26 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > > >Scott> I think you reinforce my original point. In this case, the >Scott> 'other side' isn't the proposer of the option, it's me.

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

On December 12, 2019 12:23:21 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes: > > Scott> TLDR: Words have meanings and I find it deeply offensive when >Scott> one group tries to hijack them for their own ends. This

Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

Hartman wrote: >TL;DR: Treating people with respect is hard and very contextual. >Choosing to change how you talk about something to make people more >comfortable doesn't always mean you were obligated to make that change. >Sometimes you're just promoting connection. > >>

Re: Option G update (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

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 > >

Re: Option G update [signed] (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

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

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote: > I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe > that the vote is called to early. > > They can vote FD above other options. > And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options > would send a clear

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

On November 27, 2019 2:54:04 PM UTC, Simon McVittie wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +, Chris Lamb wrote: >> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity" >> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to >> it being subject to a plebiscite?

Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR

On November 16, 2019 10:50:59 PM UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:40:10PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: >> >> [2019-11-15 11:52] Ian Jackson >> > Dmitry, I suggest instead, this change to your original text: >> >> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On November 15, 2019 3:26:31 AM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes: > >> This option makes multiple references to RC and non-RC bugs based on >> actions of the policy editors. > >> It's my understanding that determining if a bug is RC or not is

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On November 14, 2019 8:08:28 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >I'd like to propose the following resolution. > >Seconds are not required, but it would be valuable to get confirmation >that the three choices contained in this proposal are worth having on >the ballot. >So, rather than seconding

Re: Q to both: facilitating meetups

On March 29, 2017 8:16:40 PM EDT, Mehdi Dogguy <me...@dogguy.org> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On 29/03/2017 13:34, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:25:29 AM Mehdi Dogguy wrote: >> ... >>> I believe the Roadmap will help us for the first s

Re: Q to both: facilitating meetups

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:25:29 AM Mehdi Dogguy wrote: ... > I believe the Roadmap will help us for the first subject and the partners > program, once in place, will bring new (useful) workflows on the > organization side. ... IIRC, last year your campaign included this idea of roadmaps.

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

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 02:26:59 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:11:46AM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Here's an example of possible unintended consequences: > > > > Currently we enumerate no specifics about exceptions to when

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

On January 11, 2017 4:47:30 PM EST, Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> wrote: >Hello Scott, > >On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:04:02PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Yes, but all your proposed GR does is move the problem one definition >> to the right. >

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

d for Debian. > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:51:37PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > What is the definition of serious and what is the definition of > > limited? > > Intentionally not specified, so that it's left up to the judgement of > those implementing the soc

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

On Monday, January 09, 2017 09:00:58 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > On Monday, January 09, 2017 07:08:19 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > >> === BEGIN GR TEXT === > >> > >> Title: State exception for security bug

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

On Monday, January 09, 2017 07:08:19 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3 > > 1. Debian has a longstanding practice of sharing information about >serious security bugs with only the security team. This is so

Re: devotee currently not sending replies

On Monday, November 30, 2015 03:13:07 PM Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > Kurt> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 03:44:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:58:56AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > >> > It seems devotee is currently

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Friday, October 30, 2015 08:00:30 PM Philip Hands wrote: > Sam Hartman writes: > >- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > > > > >Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix > > > >Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical > >

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

Yes. that's the one I recalled that I liked. Seconded. Scott K On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 01:08:39 AM Sam Hartman wrote: > See https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2015/09/msg00016.html > for the message to second if you choose to do that. > Rationale copied below. > > > As I

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:50:30 PM Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: On 12/02/2014 06:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it should be thoroughly discussed before I could second

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Monday, December 01, 2014 12:20:25 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote. For more background information on the development of this proposal, see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ] I'm hereby formally submitting the GR

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote: On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote: As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed. Why not support the amendment from Lucas instead which has more or less the same effect? It has the ~same effect right now

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Monday, December 01, 2014 12:28:58 PM Hubert Chathi wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:50:27 -0500, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com said: - -- As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after January 1st

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Monday, December 01, 2014 09:12:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: We discussed, and I thought there was consensus around, the idea that due to the recent ctte churn, the transitional measure was no longer needed. You

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:33:28 PM Sam Hartman wrote: Lucas == Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: Lucas (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread Lucas over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire Lucas the 2 most senior members -