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

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

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

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > === 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 === This proposal has

Ballot for declassifying parts of -private of historical interest

Hi, I've prepared a ballot for the upcomming GR. It contains some new sections and I hope it's more clear than the previous ones. I'm looking for feedback. Kurt Voting period starts 2016-08-07 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2016-08-20 23:59:59 UTC The following

draft explaining the GRs

Hi, It seems that I'm getting some questions about the current votes and I think it's probably best to send an other mail explaining things. Below is a draft, I'm looking for some feedback. Hi, The recent General Resolutions resulted in some questions: Voting secrecy == It was

Re: Slight confusion with voting

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:19:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Gianfranco Costamagna , 2016-07-31, 10:29: > > > Your key. "Responses to a valid vote" come from the secretary, after > > > you cast such a vote; you are responding to a ballot, not a vote. > > exactly, and

Re: GR: Replace Chairman by Chair in the constitution: First call for votes

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:38:39PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > The ballot mail has these headers: > > Reply-To: gr_ctte_ch...@vote.debian.org > Mail-Followup-To: grp_ctte_ch...@vote.debian.org > > The latter address looks typoed. s/grp/gr/? Yes, and I've set up an alias so both should work.

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

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:13:38PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > * Don Armstrong [2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700]: > > > 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

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

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:56:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > If on the other hand we say: Listmaster can come up with a proposal > which can be discussed and as ultima ratio vetoed by GR (or by DPL via > delegation revocation) I don't think the DPL can not undo a decision made by someone

Re: DPL 2017 vote timeline

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:21:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > The timeline this year is: > Nomination period: 2017-03-05 - 2015-03-11 > Campaigning period: 2017-03-12 - 2015-04-01 > Voting period: 2017-04-02 - 2017-04-15 So that should be: Nomination period: 2017-03-05 - 2017-03-11

DPL 2017 vote timeline

The timeline this year is: Nomination period: 2017-03-05 - 2015-03-11 Campaigning period: 2017-03-12 - 2015-04-01 Voting period: 2017-04-02 - 2017-04-15 Kurt

Re: Call for votes: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:11:32PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > [ Amazing as it might seem for this issue, I forgot to sign my > mail. Here it is again. Apologies for the duplication ] > > Debian Project Secretary, > > It has been two weeks since I posted my GR proposal [1] to the > debian-vote

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:08:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my > CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It > currently has four seconders only, so in order to have the three > presented options in the ballot:

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:09:37PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:08:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > While checking all requisites are met, I found I mis-counted for my > > CfV, mixing together Iain's original and reformed proposal. It > > current

GR draft text

Hi, Here is the current draft text. Voting period starts 2016-10-09 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2016-10-22 23:59:59 UTC The following ballot is for voting on declassifying debian-private. This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:43:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private > (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > > So that proposal has 5 seconds now, and so is accepted. >

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:29:03PM +, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:57:21PM +0200, Sven Bartscher wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:53:28 +0100 > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > > I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:53:01PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Then there is a proposal from Iain Lane <la...@debian.org>: > > > Title: debian-private shall remain private > > 1. The 2005 G

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:37:05AM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote: > Just found out about Gunnar's proposal in the debian-vote archive, so I > am seconding Gunnar's proposal from 20160902041505.gd3...@gwolf.org > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2016/09/msg4.html) This is not signed. Please

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:15:05PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >lisa archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:52:44PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:37:05AM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote: > > > Just found out about Gunnar's proposal in the debian-vote archive, so I > >

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:37:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jakub Wilk writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private > (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > > * Ian Jackson , 2016-09-20, 16:47: > > >5.

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:49:54PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Ian Jackson , 2016-09-20, 16:47: > > 5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary. > > s/5/6/ The website actually says 6 there, since I replaced the numbers by . Kurt

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:34:42AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:23:31PM +0100]: > > > > Do I need to re-make my proposal as an amendment to Gunnar's or are > > > > you happy to treat it as such ? > > > > > > FWIW I think we will be better off if we have it

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:17:46AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-01 at 23:15 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-

Re: draft ballot

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 12:46:56AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > Here is the draft ballot. > > > > Thanks for it! > >

Re: draft ballot

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Here is the draft ballot. > > Thanks for it! > > This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the > vot

Re: DPL Voting period

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

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2017: Call for nominations

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 02:29:17PM +, Chris Lamb wrote: > Chris Lamb wrote: > > > I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL election. > > Trying again; something, somewhere mangled my signature. The signature was fine in both cases. Kurt

draft ballot

Here is the draft ballot. Kurt Voting period starts 2017-04-02 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2017-04-15 23:59:59 UTC This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For

DPL Voting period

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

Ballot for the vote

Here is the ballot for the vote. Voting period starts 2018-04-03 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2018-04-16 23:59:59 UTC This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For

Vote status

The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I can reprocess your email. There is no reason to revote at the moment. If you did vote properly you

Re: Vote status

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:20:13AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > The vote is running, you can send the emails. You will not get a > ack about your vote until I can look at what's broken, which will > hopefully be tomorrow evening. If you received an error message, I > can reproces

Draft ballot

This is the draft ballot. Voting period starts 2019-04-07 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2019-04-20 23:59:59 UTC This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting

Re: Withdrawing from DPL election

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:25:58PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On 17.03.19 00:51, Simon Richter wrote: > > > I'd also like nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election. > > As you may have noticed, life happened to me shortly after sending that > mail. I'm definitely not in a position to

Re: Withdrawing from DPL election

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 01:33:33PM +0700, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx [2019-03-29 23:39]: > > I've updated the vote pages to remove you as candidate. > > I'm not sure if removing Simon from the vote page entirely is best > from a historical records point of view.

Re: Nomination from tbm

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:36:31AM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I hereby announce my intention to run for DPL. I'm going to look at this as a valid self nomination, and not just an intention to nominate yourself. Kurt

Re: Nomination for sjr

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:51:27AM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > I'd also like nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election. This looks like a valid nomination Kurt

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2019: Call for nominations

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > I hereby nominate myself for the DPL election 2019. I ack that this is valid. Kurt

Re: DPL 2019 nomination

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:38:52AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I nominate myself to stand as a candidate for DPL in the 2019 DPL > elections. I ack that this is valid. Kurt

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2019: Call for nominations

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 01:43:04PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > I hereby nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election. I ack that this is valid. Kurt

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2019: Call for nominations

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 01:48:23PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 15337 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > In fairness, I'd recommend that the nominations period be extended for > > some explicit time. I think that we want to have a known window for new > > nominations rather than say

DPL election 2019

Hi, This is the proposed timeline for the 2019 DPL election: Nomination period: Sunday 2019-03-03 - Saturday 2019-03-09 Campaigning period: Sunday 2019-03-10 - Saturday 2019-03-30 Voting period: Sunday 2019-03-31 - Saturday 2019-04-13 Kurt

DPL vote results

Hi, It seems that the automatic mail didn't get send. The winner is Sam Hartman. I will send an official mail later. Kurt signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader election 2019: First call for votes)

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > Hi all, > > I have set up an expiry on my GPG key: > - originally set to 2019-04-07 > - updated on 2019-04-08 to 2021-04-06 and pushed to various keyservers > including keyring.debian.org. > > But nevertheless my ballot is

Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader election 2019: First call for votes)

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:10:04PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have set up an expiry on my GPG key: > > - originally set to 2019-04-07 > > - updated on 2019-04-08 to 2021-04-06

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > Choice hartmans1: Affirm Init Diversity > > Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues > the following statement describing our current position on Init > systems, Init system diversity, and the use of

Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:40:10PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > [2019-11-15 11:52] Ian Jackson > > Dmitry, I suggest instead, this change to your original text: > > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than > systemd continues to be value for the project.

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:01:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I also don't think it is appropriate to consider something overriding a > > delegate unless it is overiding a specific decision of a delegate. > > For the record, it's not possible in this case to override a decision of > the

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > The secretary requested that I have each choice be self-contained. > So I'm folding the header into each choice. > > The line of dashes separates each choice. > I formally propose these general resolution options. Can you please

Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:08:36PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As I've mentioned before, these need to be framed in terms of policy, not > RCness. Note that we also have delegated policy editors: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/08/msg2.html Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:44:09PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:33 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:54:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Sam Hartman writes: > > > To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started > > November 16. > > So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring on > > November 30. > > Your acceptance of my amendment

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote: > > Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat). That email wasn't signed. Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain > nothing > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning > changes.) I was unable to verify your signature.

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 02:41:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and > systemd"): > > The update should be available on the website now. > > Hi, thanks. I looked at the version here > >

Re: Procedural rangling

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > > Kurt> I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my > Kurt> current interpretation is different. The page

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:08:08PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous > versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not > change meaning. > > Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:51AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: > > Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init > Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"): > >> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems > >>

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I would note that as the proposer of an option with enough seconds, I > can also call for a vote when the minimum discussion period has > elapsed. You can increase the minimum discussion period, but only to > 3 weeks. IMO it would

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support > > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome. > > Dmitry titled his posting "

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > > > > > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain &

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:45:21AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): >

Re: Draft ballot

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote: > Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options? Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL election also had the full text of the options. Kurt

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:24:36PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Gerardo Ballabio writes: > > > Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed > > before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct > > and will agree to whatever formal step is required

Draft ballot

Hi, Do you think it's useful to also have the text of all the options in the ballot? Here is the draft ballot: Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd This vote

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 power to set the minimum discussion > period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

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: > >

Re: Re: Draft ballot

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:53:10PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head. What do you think there is no consensus about that is relevant? I did not see anybody sponsor Ian's GR yet, so it seems to me I have no other option than to

Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"): > > > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe > > > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in

Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E [and 1 more messages]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ian Jackson writes: > > > Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or > > could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still > > start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to

Re: Draft ballot

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"): > > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd > > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives > > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Import

Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows: > * c the HTML from proposal D > * Adding the new title > * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c the text > from G, and numbering the paragraphs as clauses > * Renumbering

Updated draft ballot

Hi, Here is a new draft ballot: Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the

Re: Updated draft ballot

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a new draft ballot: Here is a new one: Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC The following ballot is for voting on init systems an

Re: Option G update (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot, > given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But > it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the >

Re: Option G update [signed] (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:48:48PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Seconded. That's 5, I'll update everything. Kurt

Re: Updated draft ballot

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here is a new draft ballot: > > Here is a new one: And even a newer one: Voting period starts 2019-12-07 0

Re: Option G update [signed] (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:50:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > That's 5, I'll update everything. The website should be updated very soon. Kurt

Re: Call for Votes on the Initit Systems GR

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

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:57:04PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > It is not clear to me who can "accept" it - would that me be as the > proposer of this version, or Sam as the original proposer ? Perhaps > Kurt's life would be made easier if Sam would, at the appropriate > point, indicate his

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:37:46PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon 18 Nov 2019 at 04:57PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"): > >> Ian Jackson writes: > >> > + (with no substantial effect on systemd installations) > >>

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > Seconded. So that was the 5th second, and I've pushed that to the webiste. Note that it's still the original proposal, Ian doesn't seem to have accepted Russ's change yet. Kurt

Re: Procedural rangling

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:53:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > > > > > Kurt> I always struggle with trying to unde

Re: Replacing Proposal A

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > Kurt> It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was > Kurt> part of the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4 >

Re: CFV Timing and length of voting period

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 because I think the primary

Re: Proposed amendment to Proposal D

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > Kurt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at

Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:01:38PM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Seconded That wasn't signed. Kurt

Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I'd like submit the following proposal: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution > cooperation So I counted enough seconds and it's on the website now. Kurt

Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and > > cross-distribution cooperation > > Seconded. The message was nog signed. Kurt

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:54:40PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +, Chris Lamb wrote: > > > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity" > > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to > > it being subject to a

Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:15:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > Kurt> Anyway, I'm not sure what the "I'd like" means. Is that just > Kurt> an intention to do it, or did you do it? > &g

Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 08:43:38PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Seconded. Your message wasn't signed. Kurt

Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 03:47:40PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > First, if it does not reset the minimum discussion period, I'd like to > withdraw proposal C. I don't think that withdrawing an option changes the minimum discussion period. In A.2 it says: 4. The minimum discussion period is

Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:44:08AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal > > C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out > > if there are any

Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 06:46:27PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I'm thus proposing the following: That is now on the website. Kurt

Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:34:09PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: > > Kurt> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:15:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx write

Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing

On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 11:48:42AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV > Timing"): > > The reason I didn't reorder it yet, is because it's talked about > > like that. But I guess I can just reorder it on t

Re: Proposed amendment to Proposal D

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > [change removing regret about having another GR] > > > Unless anyone objects by 1400 UTC on Wednesday, I intend to accept > > this amendment, assuming that

Re: Replacing Proposal A

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:34:13PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes: > > Sam> Dear Secretary: > > Sam> Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the > Sam> following amended text; I accept this amendment. > > Sigh, and introduced a typo

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >