On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, stating
> the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the
> observed fact that it started no less than five years ago.
Gunnar,
I very much disagree with this view.
On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And if something is
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
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on
> *this* GR has started only a month ago.
>
> A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a
> ballot that is likely to be so contentions.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:09:26AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
> So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
> prepare a ballot and start the vote.
> As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting period by
Hi all,
just because there are some voices complaining about Sam's call for vote, I
feel the need to raise my otherwise more silent voice. All in all I concur with
Sam's assessment that all options are covered well enough to form opinions. Now
let's vote and see where we are today. And it's
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:40 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have written this mail To people who seconded Guillem's proposal and
> to some people from the thread. I would particularly like to hear
> your views.
>
> I am considering making a formal variant of Guillem's proposal, which,
> if
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> [ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]
>
> Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > I have been proposing that
Hi Sam,
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:09:26AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
> So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
> prepare a ballot and start the vote.
> As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:40:57PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
> or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
> for a vote.
I (mostly) missed this part busy preparing an event...
> I agree that
Hi Ian,
On Di 03 Dez 2019 13:54:40 CET, Ian Jackson wrote:
* Should I adopt Guillem's framing as a preamble to my own proposal ?
(Should this be a new alternative or a replacement?)
* Would Guillem's framing make a good preamble to Dmitry's option ?
* Or do the supporters of Guillem's
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
>> deep into this discussion?
> Evidently someone truly believes there is
Sean Whitton writes:
> Russ, could you chime in here -- do you still think that starting on the
> 8th would give enough time to people who might be away from the PGP keys
> during the holiday season, or would we be cutting it tight?
> (I am almost never away from my own PGP subkeys so I don't
[ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]
Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal. I need a few more days
Sam Hartman writes:
> 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 message that we should develop options based on
Hello,
On Sun 01 Dec 2019 at 11:06AM +02, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'm sorry for the delay. Maybe this reply is moot now that proposal C
> has been withdrawn but I wanted to share my personal view of why
> another proposal was needed.
>
> [...]
>
> Like I said, proposals B and D have a lot of
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 message that we should develop options based on G.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:46:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> > >
> > > Title: A few extra days
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I agree that all the useful options seem to be on the ballot, and I look
> forward to see what comes out. I would prefer that we didn't start
> something that looks like meta-discussing options, and meta-discussing
>
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> >
> > Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> >
> > 1. We exercise the DPL's
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
>
> Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
>
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think we can use the constitutional process to delay this, to make
I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
for a vote.
I
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> 2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems
Ian> GR is overturned. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
This was not a DPL decision.
This was a decision of an author of a proposal on the ballot.
So I don't think this is a decision that can be
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> > reasonably points out is desirable. Russ suggested a voting period
> > starting on the 8th
Sam Hartman writes:
> The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
> So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
> prepare a ballot and start the vote.
I think this is an error, and urge you to reconsider; there is clearly
an active process to try and
Hello,
On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> reasonably points out is desirable. Russ suggested a voting period
> starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible [2],
> which probably means a call
It was pointed out to me off-list that the constitution says that in
calling for a vote I am supposed to say what I think the options are.
That feels kind of presumptuous given the work the secretary has done.
Kurt and I discussed off list much earlier and he doesn't need me to say
what I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has
IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we
can make a version which combines
The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
prepare a ballot and start the vote.
As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting period by a week.
I think we've gotten to a point where the existing proposals
In some sense I am asking the same questions as Russ.
Guillem Jover writes ("Reframing (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to
support portability and multiple implementations)"):
> I've to say, that while I think I understand where your and other similar
> reactions to this proposal are
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 at 00:28:54 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Wasn't there a plan to add support for containers managed through
> systemd that have filtered access to the system dbus, or is that just a
> special case of a service unit?
As a general rule, "heavyweight" containers with their own
Hi,
I've CC-ed Benda, so he may answer too.
On 12/2/19 12:07 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> As there currently aren't credible alternatives to systemd, not even at
> the level of Upstart, I think it's wrong to phrase the question in
> terms of whether Debian "supports innovation" and so on.
I don't
Hi Sam,
On 12/2/19 6:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
>
> Thomas> Sam,
>
> Thomas> Is this a real life case (if so, please name the
> Thomas> package...), or just a pure fictional one, just because you
> Thomas> love debating?
>
> Thomas>
* Guillem Jover [2019-12-02 22:55]:
> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be evaluated
> independently
Guillem, there's a lot of stuff I agree with you on, both in this
email and the proposal you wrote.
What I find strange though is that you acknowledge in this email that
33 matches
Mail list logo
