Hi Russ,
I realize I'm very late with this (sometimes one is just delayed with
reading emails), but I wanted to thank you for this mail. I think it
captures quite well how this all works, and why it is difficult to write
down a set of rigid rules (occasionally, that is also why I did not add
such
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:09:30AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 2:50 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 07:22:38AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as I understand of what is going wrong is that gnupg tries to
> > > write to the status fd,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:51:48AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any plan to support cv25519 key on devotee?
>
> Or could devotee send unencrypted ack to the voter? I really don't
> mind the vote secrecy... But I want to see my vote hash.
Yes, same here. I'm willing to put in
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:54:01PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > IME, often, lawyers go "this probably won't do anything, but it can't
> > harm us, so meh, let's try and see what we can get from a judge
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 09:13:50AM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:17:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:10:24PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:37:49PM +, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > > Le Tue, Sep 13,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/23/22 22:22, Bart Martens wrote:
>
> > > Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the
> > > purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both
> > > would be available.
>
> > Do we
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey Wouter!
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> system will *also* be configured to use the non-free
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware
> component by default in the apt sources.list file.
What's the rationale for this one?
I think it would make more sense to only configure the system to enable
the
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:27:48AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> > Not sure if you're familiar with extrepo?
>
> As I understand it, extrepo is more for things like the Mozilla Firefox
> or PostgreSQL repositories than things like Ubuntu? Probably a
> discussion for the extrepo maintainer, or
Hi Samuel,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:23:38AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Devin Prater, le lun. 21 mars 2022 22:10:15 -0500, a ecrit:
> > As far as backports, my problem is enabling it. Normal desktop users
> > probably
> > won't even know what that is, and the syntax is rather
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:44:16AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
> > The one we just had was tl;dr to me. The people pushing it gave me zero
> > motivation to read it, I spent my spare time on my packages.
While I can't speak for Russ, I did try to summarize in "normal"
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:41:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As of this writing, the tally sheet is still the dummy tally sheet, and it
> > has not been replaced with the real one.
>
> I don't see a pro
As of this writing, the tally sheet is still the dummy tally sheet, and it has
not been replaced with the real one.
What's happening?
--
Verstuurd vanaf mijn Android apparaat met K-9 Mail. Excuseer mijn beknoptheid.
... let's try that with cryptography this time around.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:58:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > Wouter&
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Wouter> It was always my intent
Hi Kurt,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Ping?
>
> I've pushed this to the website on Tuesday. I forgot to mail
> that I've done so.
Ah, yes; indeed. I missed that, obviously
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at
Hi Kurt,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:54:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Text of the GR
> > > ==
> > >
> > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend th
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:09:41PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am interested in this informal proposal from Russ, which has not
> received much explicit feedback:
>
> On Sun 07 Nov 2021 at 03:53PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you could make the system
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:55:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First,
>
> > Many thanks to Russ and Wouter for all their work on this.
>
> +1
>
>
> If I understand correctly, most agree that we would like to keep
> the discussion period short in most cases. But at the same time, in
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:00:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> > better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/c
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> Section A
> -
>
> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>
> A.1.1. Strike the sentence "
I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
am looking for seconds.
Rationale
=
Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this
amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different,
on purpose.
Our voting system, which
Hi all,
I just caught up with all the traffic on this list (and there were a lot
of them). Rather than trying to find all the relevant emails and reply
to each of them individually, let me just combine all my comments in
this mail.
First, let me clarify my position: I feel that our voting system
Russ Allbery schreef op 7 november 2021 22:33:48 GMT+02:00:
>Hi all,
>
>I think the discussion has mostly died down on my draft GR. Wouter's
>alternative proposal has some support, but not the sort of overwhelming
>support that would lead me to believe I should drop my proposal in favor
>of his,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 08:41:15PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Interesting:-)
> I'd have to think hard about whether to rank that proposal above or
> below FD.
> I prefer Russ's option, but given your goals I agree this sounds like a
> good way to achieve them.
Can you shed some light on your
Hi Nikolaus,
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:20:13AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by people
> > who do not support that option will usually result in a cluttered
> > ballot,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 03:53:38PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 10/24/21 2:01 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 6. The project leader may, at any point in the process, set the
> > discussion period to any length between 1 and 3 weeks, except that
> > they m
On second thought...
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 06:54:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> With this process, we could also default the minimum discussion time to
> be much shorter (say, one week or so); then if there is much to discuss,
> after 6 days or so someone could suggest "
Hi Sam,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 12:49:57PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However there is one area of agreement, and I'll focus there.
> I agree that if a sufficient part of the project wants to continue the
> discussion, we should be able to do that.
> I just don't see how to accomplish that in a
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To fully achieve what Wouter is calling for would therefore *also* require
> a constitutional change. It's not a preservation of the existing status
> quo. I know Wouter knows that, but I wanted to make sure it was
Hi all,
Let me start by apologizing for taking this long to send this email. The
attentive reader will have noticed my name in Russ' original draft as
one of the people who reviewed it. When Russ sent his initial proposal,
I started drafting a large response that I lost due to a silly mistake
on
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:29:07AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Given that Friday was Autism Awareness Day, it might be worth noting that
> RMS is clearly "on the spectrum" - and well known since the days he slept in
> his office at MIT (my student days).
>
> Why is it that nobody ever gives
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:06:07PM +, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Could we get a Constitution Amendment GR passed along the lines of the
> following?
>
> Provided that 2*Q developers demand it, votes are kept secret after
> the vote ended.
I would actually prefer it to be easier:
If
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> with FD. It'd probably help.
FD effectively is the same as "none of the above".
You might believe that the subject is stupid and that the horse is dead
Hi Barak,
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:51:59AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure he'd be an ideal board member, but that’s a practical
> rather than ethical consideration, and surely best left to the
> judgement of the individual organization.
>
> What’s problematic to me
Hi Jonas,
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Wouter,
>
> Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57)
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico.
> >
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico.
>
> For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a
> fair trial.
Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He
is still a human
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:55:48AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:37 AM Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> So I'm more satisfied with the rationale of creating a Debian
> foundation, although my concerns about the actual operations still
> apply (i.e. how are you going to make sure you'll do a better job than
> the TOs you're not happy
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 Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 19:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Sysvinit has worked for over 20 years. Yes, it has warts, but the warts
>
> > I therefore disagree in the strongest terms to make this be about the
> &
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:59:58AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-12-01 at 18:43 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > "Uoti" == Uoti Urpala writes:
> >
> > Uoti> IMO encouragement for supporting alternative systems could be
> > Uoti> reasonable, but only for actual new
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:32:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > I think a better solution is to accept that some maintainers simply
> > won't have the time or inclination to maintain support for non-default
> > init systems, and that such init
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:36:53PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CONTRIBUTIONS OF NON-SYSTEMD SUPPORT WILL BE ACCEPTED
>
> * Failing to support non-systemd systems when such support is
>available, or offered in the form of patches (or packages),
>*should* be treated as a release critical
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:16:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> > You can formally propose a GR today, and I recommend you do -- otherwise
> > we end up discussing things before the discussion peri
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:58:52AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Wouter> Oh, right. Okay. I suppose that makes sense; the nbd-client
> Wouter> init script hasn't been touched since I wrote the nbd-client
&g
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> This is a draft GR. I hope to be at a point where I could formally
> propose a GR in a week, assuming discussion converges that fast.
You can formally propose a GR today, and I recommend you do -- otherwise
we end up discussing
So, now that all candidates have answered...
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:55:37PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Specifically today,
These two words were meant to be a reference to today's date.
> should we try to make Debian usable on any of the operating system kernels
> that I quo
Hi all,
One thing that Debian has historically been good at, is to produce ports
for various architectures. However, we're not the most widely ported;
Gentoo, for instance, has been ported to Interix and macOS[1]. NetBSD
has a few ports that we do not have, and its pkgsrc is available for a
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:33:06AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> The problem is not Debian vs me, but Debian vs a lot of people keeping
> logs on their personal laptops + some servers around the world.
If you think that creating a central IRC log service will make people
stop logging
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:01:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 08:25:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > It was always my understanding that this was the case, and as far
> > as I know people have always stopped discussing after the
> > campaigning was over.
>
> I think
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:44:20AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello Mehdi and Chris,
>
>
>
> Debian has a "we don't hide things" wording in his constitution.
>
> However we don't have a public irc log system, and most
>
> of the conversations between us are happening there.
>
>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:27:13AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> To me, Debian at it's best is kind of an extremist leader in
> organisational transparency:
You may be seeing things that I don't see.
> - we released all our source code for everything before 'open source'
>was even invented
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:27:19PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> When I joined Debian I endorsed the social contract [0] which said
> "we won't hide problems".
"we won't hide problems" is not the same thing as "we'll put all our
garbage out in the open"...
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical*
Hi Marga,
I second this amendment, although it introduces a minor awkwardness:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> - The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman;
> + The Technical Committee and/or its Chair;
A "Chairman" is a person. A "Chair" may be an
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 05:51:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an
> off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering"):
> > Having given this some more thought, I believe I've come to understand
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:41:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If you're referring to the casting vote exception in the proposal, you
> urgently need to reread §5.1.7 of the constitution: the DPL has a
> casting vote for GRs!
Actually, you were referring to sections (i
Hi Ian,
Having given this some more thought, I believe I've come to understand
why you don't see this to be such a crazy idea as I believe it is.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one
> error and
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 think that makes 5 second now, so I'll update the page with it
> later.
It's now over a week since that mail, and the
Hi Sam,
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:28:20PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>Committee could overrule a Developer with a
Hi Ian,
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The intent of this change is that if the Condorcet(CSSD) winner does
> not meet the supermajority requirement, it is still the winning
> outcome of the whole vote, but only as a non-binding statement of
> opinion.
>
> So for
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In conclusion, endless discussion is not a win. And I think this
> strategic voting fix may bring us there. If I were to put together an
> amendment that fixed the strictly greater issue but did not tackle the
> strategic voting
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:53:10PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
An exception to the uniformity of the effects of transitional measures
is max. I haven't touched it partly because it doesn't seem to have
received much attention as of lately, and partly because it seems to
actually have as a
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably
rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much.
How about:
I don't think this is a
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
Philip Hands p...@hands.com writes:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
at the same time and have been a member of the Debian
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:44:42PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Hi,
6.2. Composition
1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
usually have at least 4 members.
2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:44AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we
should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's
not something that would be achieved if Further Discussion were to
win.
I
Hi,
I'd like to call for votes on the code of conduct GR.
Thanks,
--
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer
-- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:47:43AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Solveig wrote:
I can write specific amendments, if somebody is willing to sponsor them :)
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't
Actually
Hi Solveig,
[I didn't have a lot of time this morning, so I could only fire off a
quick mail down the thread. This mail does deserve a more in-depth
answer, however, so here goes]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote:
[...]
I think if you do something, do it right. Lots of
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:43:18PM +0100, enr...@enricozini.org wrote:
[...]
Solveig's email made me think of a different use case, though: telling
those we want to keep, but who are new on our mailing list, what they
can expect. Something along the lines of:
Things like these are not
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In addition, a list of do nots will make people assume that the
project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one
participant of the CoC BoF during
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:19:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
In general, I understand where Wouter is coming from, and the points that
Steve made about inspiring people to behave better in public. However,
this one paragraph really lept out at me.
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I believe the DFSG should ensure equality of access to works in
Debian. Thus it is my opinion that all items in the DFSG should apply
to the contents of all source and binary packages in Debian main and
that we should amend the DFSG to
Hi list,
I'm sorry to be doing this in the middle of campaigning, but this will
come to a vote pretty soon, and I don't think I want to wait until it's
too late. Candidates can ignore this (unless they want to comment, of
course).
I'd like to propose a rationale for option one on the ballot, if
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 03:25:46PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You mean you want to go through GR 2004_003 *again*?
That GR passed and was about the SC, not the DFSG. Personally I think
it was a mistake to not change the terminology used
with
me...
- Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
I'd like to propose a rationale for option one on the ballot, if I
may:
Rationale:
Allowing the DPL to update the Code of Conduct will make it easier
to
adapt it to changing circumstances, without having to go through
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:31:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
While it's probably too late in this process to change what we're going to
vote on, I just ran across this today, and it may be of general interest
in the context of codes of conduct.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:27:31PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Sorry for the slight hijack but:
| Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:29:19 +0100
| From: Neil McGovern n...@halon.org.uk
| To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
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 propose that we modify
paragraph 3 read as follows, instead:
---
3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:54:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Formally accepted :)
So I inserted that after 2, and it now reads:
ol
liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The first one is now:
ol
liThe Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
communication within the project.
liUpdates to this code of
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:53:48PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Seconded, but I'd also like a couple of amendments which I'll add in
another mail.
And here's those amendments.
Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
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
Hi,
Op maandag 24 februari 2014 08:47:57 schreef Alexander Wirt:
Sorry for being late.
No worries -- we don't always have the time :)
That morning I found the time to read the CoC in
detail. In that mail I speak primary for myself and not all listmasters. But
I collected some opinions from
Op woensdag 26 februari 2014 15:25:25 schreef u:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
*snip*
- the CoC, can only be an extension to our (lists.d.o) Coc [1], as there
are missing the mail/list specific parts.
Hm. The whole point of this exercise was to replace
Hi,
Op donderdag 13 februari 2014 14:13:40 schreef Alexander Wirt:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If indeed listmasters do object (which I don't think will be the case,
but of course I can't read their minds), then obviously we'll need to
work with them to fix that. Indeed
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:49:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Wouter Verhelst writes (Re: GR proposal: code of conduct):
2. The initial text of this code of conduct replaces the mailinglist
code of conduct at http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Is this overriding
Hi all,
This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
to propose a Debian code of conduct.
This code of conduct has been drafted during debconf, and been refined
during a BoF session there and in a discussion on the debian-project
mailinglist. For more details, please
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi Wouter,
Thanks for all your work on helping bring this together so far, but I
think this ballot is troubling on a number of reasons.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. The Debian project
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:25:12PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 11:59 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
## Assume good faith
Debian Contributors have many ways of reaching our common goal of a
[free](http://www.debian.org/intro/free) operating system which may
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:20:35PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:14:41AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
In that case, I think that the project should decide via using this or
that
system (“vote
Before I forget, there's one thing I wanted to say about this:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
Option A
[...]
Option B
[...]
Option C
[...]
Option D
[...]
Option E
[...]
Option F
[...]
Option G
[...]
Please don't do that. If you want to propose a GR,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:31:50PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Samstag, 25. Januar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So, let me propose the following amendment, then:
-
If this option wins, the project secretary, in the presence of at least
two other Debian Developers
1 - 100 of 403 matches
Mail list logo
