-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I'm not clear on how much of Manoj's proposal I have to include in my
message seconding it, so I've included almost the entire post.
Anyway, I second this proposal.
Matthew Vernon
Manoj wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, I had proposed this in -project
John Goerzen writes:
4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty. The
Technical Committee have failed to replace him with someone
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original point was that people who do not actually
exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
Hi,
Just a brief note informing you of my intention to stand for
election as Debian Project Leader. A full platform will be forthcoming
shortly.
Regards,
Matthew Vernon
--
At least you know where you are with Microsoft.
True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle.
http://www.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
(PGP signed - I have no GPG key in the ring)
I still intend to stand, but thought this time I'd tell you a little
about myself.
I'm 21 years old, male, and a student at Cambridge University
(UK). I'm a veterinary student, and likely to continue in
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good evening,
This is a formal call for sponsers for the below proposed Debian
General Resolution in accordance with section 4.2 of the Debian
Constitution.
I object formally to this resolution. (for reasons outlined elsewhere
in this thread).
John Goerzen writes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
Shouldn't we
John Goerzen writes:
Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The requisite discussion period having been entertained, I therefore
formally call for a vote on this topic, on the Resolution which I
originally posted on June 7, 2000, a copy of which is included below
Jordi Mallach writes:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Joseph I think I would be disappointed if the vote was
Joseph overwhelmingly against as the (seemingly largely uninformed)
Ah yes, the public disagrees with me, so it must be the
uninformed,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I'm not clear on how much of Manoj's proposal I have to include in my
message seconding it, so I've included almost the entire post.
Anyway, I second this proposal.
Matthew Vernon
Manoj wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, I had proposed this in -project
John Goerzen writes:
4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty. The
Technical Committee have failed to replace him with someone
Branden Robinson writes:
Branden's vs Manoj's proposal
His remains a strict superset of mine. If you feel I am being dishonest, I
suggest you perform a diff of the actual texts of the proposed changes,
excluding front matter in the mail messages, and the rationales.
I think dishonesty
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:33:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Depends on what you think Debian disks are :)
I would count the Official Debian disks.
Official Debian hard drives that carry the
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original point was that people who do not actually
exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
Hi,
Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the
form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually
use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the
orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available
on upstream websites
Hi,
- To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
the vote:
The Proposer of each resolution or amendment
The Project
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
The GR ballot should only give the URL on vote.debian.org where you would
find links behind each proposer/seconder. Ideally those links point
directly to the debian-vote archive so that it lets people jump into
discussions directly and form their own
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over
the ambiguity of not making any explicit decision.
If one doesn't like an option, one ranks FD above it.
[please don't CC me to emails to debian-vote]
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
Hi,
I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general
resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be
difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular
proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy
thread on
Martin Meredith m...@debian.org writes:
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[snip my proposal]
Won't this require a GR to put it into force?
I think so, yes. But I thought I'd gather opinions and refine it a bit
first.
Regards,
Matthew
--
At least you know where you
Peter Samuelson pe...@p12n.org writes:
[Matthew Vernon]
I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone
proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500
words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar
requirement would apply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
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 that the project can
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution to avoid invoking that
clause and keep the current decision (because that
Hi,
Stuart Prescott stu...@debian.org writes:
Your rationale does not explain how the normal policy process has failed to
deliver the outcomes required by the project. I think the project should
Sorry about that; I rather thought that the TC failing to rule on the
issue was failing to
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
having a decision about the default.
I think given my current
Hi,
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Given the ambiguity about whether this GR vacates the earlier TC decision, I
think it would be best to simply include in your GR text a statement that
The Debian project reaffirms the decision of the TC to make systemd the
default init
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
since it does not seem like we are going to vote, could you find
another place for that discussion ?
I think debian-vote is the correct venue of discussing my proposal
until either it gets voted on, or I withdraw it.
Regards,
Matthew
--
At least
Hi,
Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
snip
This has only had one second. In order to not prolong things
indefinitely, I'll withdraw this GR
Hi,
Thibaut Paumard thib...@debian.org writes:
I am still waiting for your answer to my concerns before I make my mind
on seconding this GR:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00024.html
The problem, I think, is that the discussion was drawn onto procedural
technicalities
Hi,
On 10/03/14 08:58, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I second the general resolution proposal below:
Thanks; with you and Iustin, I have 3 seconds now; 5 are needed for the
GR to go to a vote.
Regards,
Matthew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Matthew Vernon writes:
I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
snip
I said that if I'd not received enough seconds by today that I would
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#636783: supermajority bug):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
Speaking for no-one other than myself, I _am_ very unhappy that given
how long the discussion has been rumbling on for, and how much
opportunity there has been, that anyone thought that two weeks before
the freeze (which has had a fixed date
Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 08:38:25AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week.
I think this is a terrible idea. I agree
Brian Gupta bgu...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Sam Hartman hartm...@debian.org wrote:
Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
I'd find arguments of the form I personally would find it confusing/bad
to have both going on because ... more compelling than
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee?
Someone pointed out to me privately that there's a much easier way of
handling this. See the Maximum term for
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> Not to pile on, but i wonder whether Lamby's diligence, and his clear
> documentation of the workload (via Bits from the DPL at least) hasn't
> scared off some prospective candidates, who might now be realizing that
> they don't have the bandwidth to handle all of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST
Russ Allbery writes:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
from Sam by now.
>>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>>> to statements of principles
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
>
> Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that
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 to get it in.
It would be helpful if Sam and/or Kurt would confirm or
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
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
Sam Hartman writes:
> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
> proposal weakens option G alone.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Later in that thread (
Message-ID:
Hi,
On 05/12/2019 15:21, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
>and integrates different software that provides similar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1.
50 matches
Mail list logo
