Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: 2 defecting B voters have stolen the election from 99 co-operative A voters. Here's another example in which the 3 factions are nearly equal in size: Sincere preferences: 33: ABC 32: BAC

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:10:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Michael Ossipoff writes (Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian): Example 1: Sincere preferences: 99: ABC 2: BAC 100: C(A=B) The A voters rank

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: Below, I'll show examples of what can happen, but first I'll just verbally summarize what can happen: First of all, of course A is the CW. A is the sincere CW. In comparison to each of the other candidates, more people prefer

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 04:40:37PM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: So my understanding of things is that for your first 2 examples, voters for B being dishonest resulted in C winning In CSSD, as defined in the Debian Constitution (and as I define it too), but disregarding the default

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56:49AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: Of course obviously, if Debian doesn't have a chicken dilemma, there's no need for Debian to change its voting system from CSSD to Schwartz Woodall. I think we do theoretically have this problem, and maybe we should change. But

Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote: There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution §A.6.3 [2]. This also reminded me of

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: Hi, I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly to a vote so

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as written. Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a 1:1

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Matthew Vernon writes (Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call for seconds. [...] Seconded. This isn't counted since it's not signed. Kurt

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): This is probably going to require

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: This a GR proposal is a position statement about issues of the day (as it says in the Notes and rubric.) It's on the subject of init systems. Therefore it is covered by this wording. But it also says: 1. Exercise of the TC's

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:45:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Matthew Vernon writes (Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): I

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: This a GR proposal is a position statement about issues of the day (as it says

DPL election

Hi, It seems I should have started the DPL nomination period already today if I want to keep the start and end dates in a weekend. It should have been: nomination: 2 march - 8 march campainging: 9 march - 29 march voting: 30 march - 13 april So that we'd have a new DPL by the 17th of april.

Re: DPL election

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:31:42PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, It seems I should have started the DPL nomination period already today if I want to keep the start and end dates in a weekend. It should have been: nomination: 2 march - 8 march campainging: 9 march - 29 march voting: 30

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:51:07PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: My message was, in the words of Constitution 4.2.5, an announcement on a publicly-readable electronic mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s) (I assume that listmaster have designated debian-vote

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): There is also this decision of the CTTE: The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time about whether software may require

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2014: Call for nominations

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:46:29PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, As I've previously said so in [1], this should not be a surprise: I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election. You're too early. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:22:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:15:09PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: Logind requires systemd. This is false, and therefore the rest of the question is irrelevant. I think the point of his question is to have an example that we

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2014: Call for nominations

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:38:06AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, Let's try this again: I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election. Ok Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2014: Call for nominations

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:48:16AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election. Ok -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:39:40AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two resolutions

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:25:16PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. I second this proposal. I actually got a BAD signature on this.

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:09:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct): On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes (GR proposal: code of conduct): This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 I've

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: == 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of communication within the project. So I've been wondering under which part of the

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:41:10PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi all, This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution to propose a Debian code of conduct. So I've put up a vote page with my

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:55:10PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I second Wouter's proposal and both of Neil's amendments below. (I haven't counted the current seconds for the amendments. The -vote page indicates there's not enough.) This makes the fifth. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: So rather than accepting this amendment, I

Re: Following GR amendments evolution ? - Was: Re: General Resolution: Code of conduct

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:18:10AM +0100, Olivier Berger wrote: Hi. (not subscribed to debian-vote, so please CC me, eventually). Sorry if I'm unaware of details of our constitutional corpus and procedures, but is there a way to track evolutions in a GR page like [0], if not subscribed to

Re: call for votes on code of conduct GR

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:02:20AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Sonntag, 6. April 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I'm going to start the vote next weekend, starting on the 13th. does that mean there is still time to amend it? No. You already had 4 weeks since the last amendent

Re: call for votes on code of conduct GR

On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 09:37:57PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 02:23:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Hi, I'd like to call for votes on the code of conduct GR. I'm going to start the vote next weekend, starting on the 13th. The dpl vote and this vote

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the vote to some other place? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Arnaud Fontaine wrote: Seconded. This seems to be signed with a key that is not in the keyring. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current Project Leader, and thus does not

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows: [...] 3. Notes and rubric This resolution is a Position

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 07:14:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems): I think those 2 conflict, and that if you want to use the TC powers it would fall under 4.1.4. Kurt, we had that conversation in March. Can you

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:40:49AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion. When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of this matter? I did have to come

Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:46:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit : The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided: For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available

Re: GR option text on ballots

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are happy with. Please see

Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: Hi Kurt, On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote: So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715 or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or more of the options into overrding the TC and put

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Ian Jackson writes (Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion period

Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)): On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: That was at `Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100

Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@) Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit : The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the

Re: increasing maximum ctte size

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Even if it were as ready, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a separate GR. Voting once instead of twice is nice for everyone, but conflating two separate decisions in a single GR has been proven to be unwise in the

Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:01:40PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I can't find the reference right now, but IIRC we've discussed this during the init system coupling GR and I don't think it's possible: you are DPL, if you introduce an amendment, it's automatically accepted. I don't

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:53:11PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. AFAICT the discussion period has now

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:31:11PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 16/12/14 at 21:02 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: First draft: Looks quite good, but I'm unhappy about minor things. I propose the following more

ballot

Hi, This is the ballot as it is currently. Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, November 18th, 2014 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 31th, 2014 The following ballot is for voting on limiting the term of the technical committee members.

Re: ballot

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, November 18th, 2014 So December, not November Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: ballot

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 09:55:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, [December] 18th, 2014 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 31th, 2014 I

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2015: Call for votes [corrected]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 06:09:10AM +0200, Rémi Vanicat wrote: Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx secret...@debian.org writes: Hi, Hi, [...] There are 4 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between 1 and 4. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place

Re: draft ballot

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:34:01AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 That should of course be: Voting period starts 00:00

Re: draft ballot

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:57:30AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be, 2015-04-01, 00:35: Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 That should

draft ballot

Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2015 Results

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:00:56AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: the answer is 986 at present. So can you give me a list of those 986 so I can update the website? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Re: Results for Debian Project Leader 2015 Election

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: You can see the `options' file I passed, below. I have not verified the Secretary's quorum calculation. devotee did a quorum calculation, but i will need to recalculate it since there are DDs that don't have a key in the keyring.

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2015 Results

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:26:27AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:12:14PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote: Stats for the DPL votes: |--+--++---++-++---| | | Num || Valid

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2015 Results

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:28:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:45:37AM +0200]: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41:52PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: Sadly this list is trivially proved inaccurate So I have no source at all that is can tell me

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2015 Results

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41:52PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: Sadly this list is trivially proved inaccurate So I have no source at all that is can tell me the number of DDs? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Hi. > I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution. > Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for seconds > on the amendment I made to that resolution as its own resolution. > Obviously I'm

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:34:22PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Seconded. Please sign your message. Kurt

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: (i) Delete most of A.6(3) (which implemented the supermajority by dropping options at an early stage). Specifically: - Move A.6(3)(1) (the definition of V(A,B)) to a new subparagraph A.6(3)(0) before A.6(3)(1).

Re: In plain English please?! Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 31 August 2015 at 08:06, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary > <secret...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > A new GR has been started to update the Standard Resolution

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:30:38PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 15:18:36 Russ Allbery wrote: > > I second the below text, for both changes. > > FWIW, at least on my mail client I'm failing to verify this signature. > Not that is *that* important

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:32:34PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150829 16:03]: > > (Or I might be totally confused about the effects of all the > > changes you're doing. Those are all non-obvious changes that seem > > to change more than the t

Re: Strategic Voting Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > Kurt> The solution to this problem is moving the majority check > Kurt> later in the process, so that option B would have been dropped > Kurt> first. If they did this stratigic voting in that case both > Kurt> options

Re: In plain English please?! Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:47:47AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > > > The solution to this problem is moving the majority check later > > in the process, so that option B would have been dropped first. > > If they did this stra

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:30:43AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > Kurt> I really wish Andreas at least fixed the text of his > Kurt> resolution, I really don't want to hold a vote on a text

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:49:03AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > I second the below amendment. I think that makes 5 second now, so I'll update the page with it later. Kurt

Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:01:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150831 11:23]: > > Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit : > > > > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice > > > for the voter. In that case,

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 04:19:54PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:34:15PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:49:03AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > > I second the below amendment. > > > > I th

Re: Fix the GR text

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:06:42AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > sorry for answering so late, but I had a "great" combination of being > sick and too much work. > > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150921 08:34]: > > I would also really like to see

Fix the GR text

Andreas, Could you pretty please fix the GR text? I've been waiting for this for 3 weeks now without any reply from you. The main problem is: - Move A.6(3)(1) (the definition of V(A,B)) to a new subparagraph A.6(3)(0) before A.6(3)(1). Where Ian indicated that "A.6(3)(0)"

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: Hi together, we (as the Technical Committee) have encountered two bugs in the constitution which we like to fix. For this reason, I propose the following General Resolution to change the constitution. So I see 5 seconds, so the

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 01:44:38PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes: > > Sam> Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution. > Sam> Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for > Sam> seconds on the

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > > The following ballot is for voting on updating the standard resolution > > procedure. > [...] > > Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be>, 2015-11-28, 22:06: > >Here is the draft ballot: > > > > > >Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Sunday, November 29th, 2015 > >Votes must be receive

devotee currently not sending replies

It seems devotee is currently not working properly. Some people have received an error message, I've mailed them to vote again. I've temporary disabled processing of the incomming mails. The acknowledges will come once I'm certain I fixed the issue. Kurt

Re: devotee currently not sending replies

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:58:56AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > It seems devotee is currently not working properly. Some people > have received an error message, I've mailed them to vote again. > > I've temporary disabled processing of the incomming mails. The > acknowledges wil

Re: devotee currently not sending replies

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 03:44:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:58:56AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > It seems devotee is currently not working properly. Some people > > have received an error message, I've mailed them to vote again. > > > &

Re: devotee currently not sending replies

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:13:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > > Kurt> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 03:44:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 01:58:56AM +

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Hi. > I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution. I would like to remind you that we're now in the 3rd week of the discussion period. Kurt

Re: Results for Update Standard Resolution Procedure

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:41:27AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le jeudi, 17 décembre 2015, 09.43:20 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : > > Dear Secretary, > > (CC'ing the TC chair, as per §7.2) > > > > Le dimanche, 13 décembre 2015, 00.00:05 devotee a écrit : > > > This message is an

Draft ballot

Hi, Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts Sun Apr 3 00:00:00 UTC 2016 Votes must be received by Sat Apr 16 23:59:59 UTC 2016 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.

Re: Draft ballot

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:21:11PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > Here is the draft ballot: > > Voting period starts Sun Apr 3 00:00:00 UTC 2016 > Votes must be received by Sat Apr 16 23:59:59 UTC 2016 I've changed that to: Voting period starts 2

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > Hi, > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > > > === END GR TEXT

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" t

Re: more GRs to come

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Perhaps it would be nice if sufficiently-seconded GR amendments, or > accepted GR amendments, were announced on d-d-a, by the Secretary. My current process only announces the GR once, after there were enough seconds. It might take me

Re: Call for votes: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:18:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > Dear Secretary, > > It has been two weeks since I accepted this amendment. I would like to call > for > votes on this General Resolution. I'll let the vote start on 2016-08-07 00:00 UTC. Kurt

Re: Results for Declassifying debian-private

Please ignore this e-mail. It never happened. Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:04:00PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> [2016-07-16 20:52:03 +0200]: > > This is at least very confusing. The title says "will remain > > private", but none of the text says anything about it

Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment > to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the > following amendment: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Declassifying parts of

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]: > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > > > Ti

Re: New General Resolutions.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:58:44PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 03:52:51PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt > Roeckx a écrit : > > > > 2 new GRs have been started: > > > > - debian-private list will remain private: > > https

Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 06:53:33PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 07:20 +0200 schrieb Bernd Zeimetz: > > seconded > > if more than half the developers second the proposal, can we skip the > voting? You can look for a new secretary in that case. Kurt

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >