On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- begin proposal -8
Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its default
init system for the next release. The technical committee decided not to
decide about the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:30:46PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Upstream Developers considering a specific Free Software (including,
but not limited to, a particular init system executed as PID 1)
fundamental to deliver the best Software releases, are fully entitled
to require,
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:21:18PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
** Begin Alternative Proposal **
0. Rationale
Debian has decided (via the Technical Committee) to change its
default init system for the next release. The Technical Committee
decided not to decide about the question
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Of course RHEL and Fedora dropped sysvinit support, they are Redhat
derived. Can anybody guess where systemd is devloped?
The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then,
until alternatives have stabilized
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02:22PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
I should not have mentioned any company at` all, sorry :(
That would be the first step, yes.
--
WBR, wRAR
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:06:38PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I must note that this is a list of Voting announcements and discussion
and not yet another place where people, many of them non-DD and thus not
entitled to vote or take part in the pre-vote procedures, could endlessly
repeat
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Option 1: Agreement of DPL and an 1:1 majority in TC (6.2.5).
Option 2: GR with a 2:1 majority to act with TC powers (4.1.4).
Option 3: GR with an 1:1 majority to
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
I have a feeling which isn't backed by anything
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50:30PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Disbanding the TC would likely do more harm than good. There would be
no way to conclude a disagreement.
I suggested this before:
TC actions should be limited solely to disagreement mediation, and only
when
that
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> > Finally, for future reference, it's normal for GRs to include options
> > which are the opposite of the original proposal. If you care about the
> > subject matter, participate in -vote.
>
> Right now we have been called for a vote,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:58:34PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I would like to propose the following amendment to Marga's GR:
>
> In addition to the proposed change, the project shall vote to
> empower the DPL together with the Project Secretary to make minor
> editorial changes in our
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I hereby propose the following GR:
>
> === BEGIN GR TEXT ===
>
> The following sentence is removed from the Social Contract §5:
>
> "We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these
> areas and determine if
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 01:09:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > While we could update the wording to say s/CD/optical medium/ (or
> > something similar), SC seems like an odd place to give Debian redistributors
> > legal advice.
>
> I would have thought something like this would be best:
>
> We
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:57:11AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > Like it or not, but there *is* a big difference in the project making
> > > something available for the big wide world (which a public NEW would
> > > be), or a user putting it somewhere readable for everyone even though
>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:24:58AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> So, thinking a bit more about that, and using
> https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en.html as a basis, a split
> that could maybe work is:
Can it work without a GR?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 06:13:49PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I am assuming that the DPL role will take 15 hours a week
For all 52 weeks? This sounds harsh.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 06:08:54PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> the main problem I see with this GR is that it is in essence a rehash of
> the GR[1] we had in 2014, with pretty much the same options minus the one
> that won, "A GR is not required."
The option that won is worded like this:
"""
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:46:27AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > I think that one choice is missing here. Could you please include
> > > something like this, just to see how many people are THAT radical?
> > > P.S. myself, I wouldn't vote for this even if I had a vote.
> >
> > > Choice 4:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:10:58AM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Do you think it's ok in any case to remove init scripts. Let's say an
> upstream stops maintaining init scripts,
In my experience init scripts can only be written for Debian, not
"maintained upstream".
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:24:44AM -0800, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> The debate on systemd often turns into systemd vs. sysvinit because sysvinit
> is
> the working alternative right now. Unfortunately, this is a poor way
> to frame the
> debate. The reality is sytemd unit files are a really good
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:04:19PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> One of the options I had in my original proposal was that we could drop the
> requirement for transitions through apt, and instead provide transition
> scripts that use dpkg's --force options to go through an invalid state
> instead
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:14:13AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Louis-Philippe Véronneau dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:10:31PM -0400]:
> > I'm not sure what this is then?
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/
>
> Uh...
>
> Er...
>
> Oh...
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Please, excuse
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:44:45PM +, Martina Ferrari wrote:
> Isn't it funny how in threads discussing social justice there are always the
> same opinions coming from the same names, time and time again?
Probably most other people don't care, don't see a reason to repeat the
majority opinion
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:21:36PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly
> >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote.
> >
> >
> > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about
> > this or not. If you think Debian
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:19:26PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> But I digress, if we really want to be bold and show leadership, not
> only from the DPL but form the project, we should go a step further and
> make the Debian project not only a project to release and support a free
> software
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:18:46PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over.
I must note that probably every controversial GR started with good
intentions gets such response sooner or later.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:08:02AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 1. Most importantly - what happens if the witch-hunt is successful and rms and
> the entire FSF board are sacked/forced to resign? Who replaces them? Who gains
> control over the FSF and the text of the GPL?
It's a broader question
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:17AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
>
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman
"will not"?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:18:35PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Debian works with (or at least has worked with) the FSF in the past.
> We've invited people speaking in official FSF roles to our conferences.
> We've had people interact with them in their events and when working on
> maintaining
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:34:22AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > ---8<---8<---8<---
> > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> >
> > Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
> they want to express.
>
> When
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:31:30PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >When the Technical Committee votes whether to override a Developer who
> >also happens to be a member of the Committee, that member may not vote
> >(unless they are the Chair, in which case they may use only their
> >
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> >> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> >> > to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> > the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> > votes?
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:40:46AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > It's understandable that there is no motivation to choose between two very
> > long and complicated (and similar but maybe not?) changes.
> >
>
> True, also (like in my case) I forced myself to find the time to read trough
> it
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > The details of the results are available at:
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
>
> I think its a bit sad that even in Debian the motivation to vote seems to be
> pretty low. I'm wondering if there is anything we can do
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 08:59:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (Folks, please change the subject line when we're talking about Debian
> legal structure instead of the original topic.)
Please also note that this is still -vote@
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 10:19:47AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > "Our priorities are our users and Free Software" means that, in our decision
> making and our governance we should be oriented FIRST towards users and do
> what is good for the people who are using our software; and that our
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:14:31PM -0400, 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
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:12:24AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote:
> In fact, I am not sure if there are any real world examples of modern machines
> that would work properly without such firmware. Are there any machines on the
> market nowadays that do not require cpu microcode and do not require
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:30:43PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better
> outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more
> likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find
and also described
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:23:22PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 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 manufacturer, not on Debian. Accepting the blame for someone
> > else's
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one
> > very
> > simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
>
> It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
> pretty
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> > be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running
> > on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> > given
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 09:16:48AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> With your proposal, Debian 'main' would still consists of free content,
> but to practically install and run any of it, we and our users would
> have to download non-free content.
So just like now.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
45 matches
Mail list logo
