Jonathan Carter writes:
> On 2023/11/22 01:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> I would also like to point out that, in the current state, on Saturday
>> the discussion period is over and a vote is automatically called.
> Not so sure how automatic that was meant to be, but for what it's worth,
> I didn't
On 2023/11/22 01:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I would also like to point out that, in the current state, on Saturday
the discussion period is over and a vote is automatically called.
Not so sure how automatic that was meant to be, but for what it's worth,
I didn't see enough interest in extending
Since this error comes up again and again on this list:
The CRA is a "Regulation" (look at the long title: "REGULATION OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on horizontal cybersecurity
requirements for products with digital elements and amending Regulation
(EU) 2019/1020"), in effect a
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Excuse me to insist with vocabulary, but since you've use the word "law" 6
> times above: the EU isn't a state or a nation, and doesn't make laws. We're
> talking about "directives", that eventually will be implemented as laws in
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 04:54:30PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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
Hi,
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 16:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> At this point, and in part given that GR 2021_003 introduced time
> limits, I think the GR process might produce the swiftest results,
> and
> it will yield the best legitimacy-wise (i.e. the whole project is
> invited to debate and
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:37:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 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
Le mercredi 22 novembre 2023 à 09:05 +0100, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 11/21/23 22:26, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we
> > never
> > did used the GR process for issuing a position statement.
> >
> > The DPL could delegate to a
On 11/21/23 22:26, Bill Allombert wrote:
I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we never
did used the GR process for issuing a position statement.
The DPL could delegate to a group of people knowledgeable in EU law to draft
a statement that is congruent with the
Hi Kurt
On 2023/11/22 01:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
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 process is the best
option for the purpose
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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
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
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 process is the best
option for the purpose of drafting such statement.
13 matches
Mail list logo
