On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:42:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Martin Zobel-Helas]
I don't see the reason here to reduce the time of the voting
period. I understand immediate vote as per constitution as
voting without prior discussion period.
Please give a reasonable argument, why the
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:01:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The technical committee charter and the policy process both adopt
the principle that the people making the change [..] only act in an
editorial capacity -- reviewing changes and committing them
appropriately, but not do
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:33 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:01:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The technical committee charter and the policy process both adopt
the principle that the people making the change [..] only act in
an
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
was more willing to listen and take
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
taken as a mandate for the
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution
to be
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:46:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
the seconders who can do such.
Did you actually read this passage from
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:03:33AM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:46:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer
and
the
[Stripping out the cross posting since it's annoying]
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
| 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
|determine whether the decision will stand until the
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:16:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Not really, but i read the way resolution votes where handled (Annex A.),
which says :
A.2.1 The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:20:35AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
delegate on IRC.
I think that basing a decision with the DPL hat on just on what someone
says on IRC is a bad idea.
IRC channels are used for official project
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-10-27 10:27]:
I'm not sure what all this is aiming to achieve beyond being a different
attempt to effectively prevent me from exercising any DPL powers, and
to further discourage people from having any faith in our constitutional
processes.
You
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:20:35AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
delegate on IRC.
I think that basing a decision with the DPL hat on just on what someone
says on IRC is a bad idea.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke 4.2.2.2,
so afaics that doesn't apply.
Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
seems to apply; the resolution must say so verbiage seems to be
there to avoid putting
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
the seconders who can do such.
As you insist - which I still think isn't necessary - I
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu,
On Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 18:14:09 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
If this immediate vote is compliant with the constitutional requirements
(which afaics it's not), please consider the voting period varied to
one week.
I
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:22:32 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke 4.2.2.2,
so afaics that doesn't apply.
Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
seems
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:06:10 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone
who
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:00:39 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
IRC channels are used for official project business; the only difference
between them and mailing lists is technical.
such as ease of access, archival, peer review...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:46 +0200, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 08:49]:
You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as
secretary to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is
only the proposer and the
* Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-27 19:49]:
FWIW, you can't call an immediate vote on your proposal. Your proposal
still has the normal minimum discussion period. (Unless the DPL varies
it by a week.)
The immediate vote that Manoj is calling is a separate ballot, to
determine
I just want to say that I am deeply dismayed by the turn events
have been taking.
I have a lot of respect for both A.J. and Manoj.
But I don't see a reasonable basis for this disagreement -- this
feels more like venting under high pressure (mostly the Etch
release, I think).
In that context,
[Martin Zobel-Helas]
I don't see the reason here to reduce the time of the voting
period. I understand immediate vote as per constitution as voting
without prior discussion period.
Please give a reasonable argument, why the voting period for this GR
should be reduced to one week.
4.2.3:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:57:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
10:23 aj Manoj: will you be following the policy change procedure
you created
years ago? (file a bug marked wishlist with the changes
you want, get a second on the -policy list, answer any
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:58:09 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:57:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
10:23 aj Manoj: will you be following the policy change
procedure you created
years ago? (file a bug marked wishlist with the
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
Dear Anthony, dear all,
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader [...]
Could we all
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.
OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any
Hurray for another vote. Or how stupid management decisions bring us in
endless discussion loops.
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 21:40 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of
Seconded
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I hereby second the proposal quoted below.
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
Debian Project Secretary writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation):
There are three ways policy can be changed:
a) The Technical ctte can do so
b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
Hi Martin!
Seconded.
You wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
I have not seen an explanation by the DPL why he withdrew the policy
delegation. But even if I had, I don't think it would change much.
You didn't see much explanation when the delegation was announced either;
nor any effect as a
Anthony Towns writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation):
The process is already unnecessary, Manoj can continue to maintain policy
through his membership in the technical committee,
This is unfortunately not true. We'd
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
their own opinion without any obligation to consult each other, or
the
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
was more willing to listen and take on board comments ?
This sounds like a canard. What official Board comments have
been disregarded by the
Martin Wuertele schrieb am Mittwoch, den 25. Oktober 2006:
I second the quoted proposal
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.
Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the
constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like
to ask you to do us a favour and
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation):
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
policy package.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
I don't think you've been
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the
DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation):
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The TC could
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
with respect
Seconed.
* Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-25 21:40]:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package
I second this proposal (quoted below).
Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy
*seconded*
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM CEST, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution
to be called into action.
,
| 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or
[Debian Project Secretary]
`This is a DRAFT ballot. Voting is not yet open.
==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Friday, 28 Oct 2006
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 10 Nov 2006
Did you
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
was more willing to listen and take on board comments ?
This sounds like a
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
their
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place until the Debian
Project Leader has
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
My reason for this proposal is the impression the revocation of the
delegation is based on the disagreement of the interpretation of the
policy between the chair of the Package Policy Committee and the Debian
Project Leader.
I
* John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-25 21:55]:
You want to override a decision not because the decision is bad on its
face, but because of a *guess* as to the reason for it?
That makes no sense. What difference does the reason make? If it's a
good decision, then let it stand. If
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy Committee as
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:01:11 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the
Debian constitution to delay the decision of
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
the Package Policy
62 matches
Mail list logo
