On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 08:58:23PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Kurt Roeckx writes:
> > >
> > > > I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
> > >
> > > Tentative
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
>
> Tentative proposal, and the proponents of other options should jump in and
> correct these.
>
> A: "Only one installer, including non-free firmware"
> B:
On Sat, 2022-09-17 at 20:58 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > D: "Installer with non-free firmware not part of Debian"
> >
> > And here:
> > D: "Installer with non-free software not part of Debian"
>
> That looks the same? Do you mean
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes:
> >
> > > I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
> >
> > Tentative proposal, and the proponents of other options should jump in and
> >
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:18:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
>
> Tentative proposal, and the proponents of other options should jump in and
> correct these.
>
> A: "Only one installer, including non-free firmware"
> B:
resending publically, cause Kurt so very much deserves it!
thank you, Kurt!
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 01:17:24AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I did not have time to put the last option on the website, but it has
> enough seconds.
thanks!
(:*)
if there are specific problems, you should spell
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
Tentative proposal, and the proponents of other options should jump in and
correct these.
A: "Only one installer, including non-free firmware"
B: "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
C: "Provide installers with and
Hi,
I will most likely start the voting period tomorrow evening, so
2022-09-18 00:00 UTC.
I did not have time to put the last option on the website, but it has
enough seconds.
I welcome suggestion for the ballot texts.
Kurt
Hi,
The voting period should have be open by now. It will be delayed by 1
day.
Kurt
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 do
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 06:01:53PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>
> On 11/26/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 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
On 11/26/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 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 voting period int
Hello,
On Tue 26 Nov 2019 at 08:47AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 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
>
Question at the end about length of voting period.
Hi.
Things seem to be calming down here.
Assuming no changes, I think having discussion end on November 30 is
fine.
The sorts of changes that might complicate that include: a significant
new issue coming up, or a new proposal coming up
as over.
>
> I think this is largely true, but it is not written into the constitution.
> People's attitudes towards continued discussion on debian-vote during the
> voting period are probably heavily influenced by their local laws about
> campaign blackouts before elections i
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 08:25:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:35:06AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:34:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > We're currently in the voting period, the discussion/campaigning
> >
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:35:06AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:34:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> We're currently in the voting period, the discussion/campaigning
>> period is over. Can I please ask everybody to stop talking about
>> thin
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:35:06AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:34:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > We're currently in the voting period, the discussion/campaigning
> > period is over. Can I please ask everybody to stop talking about
> > thin
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:34:34PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> We're currently in the voting period, the discussion/campaigning
> period is over. Can I please ask everybody to stop talking about
> things related to the DPL election on this list.
I'm not sure I understand why. S
Hi,
We're currently in the voting period, the discussion/campaigning
period is over. Can I please ask everybody to stop talking about
things related to the DPL election on this list.
Kurt
Dear Lucas,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
to shorten the discussion period.
I hope you consider the point raised in
. And that TC
resolution could have an impact on the release.
Also, I think that everybody is quite tired of those discussions, and it
would be better to be able to focus on preparing the release rather
sooner than later.
Finally, given that the voting period won't be reduced, it would still
the voting period. Given that I have been heavily involved in
the discussions around this GR proposal, I am not going to reduce the
voting period against the original proposer's will.
Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Lucas,
2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
the discussion period to one week?
Fine for me.
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1
week):
I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
to shorten the discussion period.
I reached out to Ian
Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org (2014-10-22):
On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
the discussion period to one week?
I am fine with shortening it.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
before reducing the discussion period,
to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the
middle of next week about that.
There's also the possibility to use 4.2.3 to reduce the voting period to
one week. Assuming we would be voting over the last week of october or
the first
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could win with
less than 25% of the votes if the other
On 17/10/14 at 10:28 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lea...@debian.org:
So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
many options, leading to scattered votes. One party
2014-10-17 10:42 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org:
Note that our voting method is clone-proof, so one proposal cannot steal
votes from one another. That's one of the great things about Condorcet:
you can have similar proposals on the same ballot without causing the
votes to be split.
Hello DPL,
'General Resolution: Project membership procedures' has been called to
vote. Due to the previous perceived urgency of this I ask you to shorten
the voting period to one week as per 4.2.3 of our constitution.
Many thanks,
Neil McGovern
--
No matter whether you use charcoal or pine
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 02:40:17PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hello DPL,
'General Resolution: Project membership procedures' has been called to
vote. Due to the previous perceived urgency of this I ask you to shorten
the voting period to one week as per 4.2.3 of our constitution.
Agreed, let's
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:41:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this
position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for
Manoj's amendment as accepted by
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by tomorrow night so that Manoj can restart
devotee?
Andy
--
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 08:49, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by tomorrow night so that Manoj can restart
devotee?
Andy
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 08:49, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by
39 matches
Mail list logo
