On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
perfectly correct.
Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
deciding this
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments,
then he is behaving in a wholly improper manner
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq 4. We
give priority to the timely release of Etch over
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled
in contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires
that new ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an
outstanding GR
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, thanks for not flaming here; it was pleasantly surprising
to see civil discussion on this topic.
Where there's ambiguity about whether a proposer intended an amendment vs. a
stand-alone proposal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it boils down to this: are the issue orthogonal, or are they
just different solutions to the same issue? I have presented my
argument for why I think they are the same; can you explain why those
arguments do not hold, and these are
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
bit out; for this reason,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:13:23AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote:
For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL
invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified.
Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own
proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the release lenny options
need [3:1] supermajority where the very same vote didn't need it in the
past ?
From a rigorous
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:54:30PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
As long as there is no clear and unambiguous violation of the constitution
in
the Secretary's actions,
As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled in
contravention of the Standard Resolution
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 03:49:14PM +, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own
proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the release lenny options
need [3:1] supermajority where the
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
I disagree. What would be 3:1 (to date) is to decide that such bugs
aren't RC. The funding documents don't enforce the release team to
release without a single known DFSG-related issue, unless I'm deeply
mistaken. A $suite-ignore tag is _NOT_
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
firmware as a
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:15:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What this position requires is the minimal level of morality to not use
it to favor an opinion or another. And this is something Manoj has been
repeatedly doing; first in the GFDL GR, next in the etch firmwares GR,
now in the
Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
perfectly correct.
Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments, then he is
behaving in a wholly improper manner with regard to this vote, and frankly I
see
- Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
For the GFDL GR, this was even worse: the Secretary decided that “GFDL
is free” required 3:1 while “GFDL without invariant sections is free”
did not. The only reason is that he couldn’t stand the latter proposal
and decided to make it impossible
On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote:
For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL
invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified.
Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change the DFSG since the DFSG
doesn't allow things which can't be modified
* Julien BLACHE:
[ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
We're not changing the DFSG. So there's no need for 3:1.
We're overriding it, so it requires 3:1, and it was the same for the
waiver for Etch.
Are we? I mean, this stuff is already in the archive, in
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:15:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I do not trust anymore the Secretary, and I do not trust sufficiently
the result of this vote. If the otherwise winning option is dismissed by
the lack of a 3:1 majority (for which the requirements are still “Manoj
said so”),
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...], and frankly I see no reason that we as a project
should even honor the outcome of a vote on this ballot as presented.
I think you meant to say we as the Release Team.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data
Hello DPL,
I'd like to point you to the following mail by Raphaël on -vote. It is
also available at [1].
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/12/msg00038.html
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] (11/12/2008):
Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you
will
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'll echo Raphael's feelings about that ballot; it feels strange and
voting on that one is going to be a mess. There are definitely some
options that should be split into another vote.
[ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
On Thu Dec 11 10:55, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'll echo Raphael's feelings about that ballot; it feels strange and
voting on that one is going to be a mess. There are definitely some
options that should be split into another vote.
On the other
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:50:20AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Honestly, at this point, I would really wish that you retired as
secretary because there have been too many conflicts between you and
various DD while your secretarial work shouldn't be the source of any
conflict.
I honestly
Le jeudi 11 décembre 2008 à 15:38 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho a
écrit :
More strongly, I believe Manoj has repeatedly shown the sort of moral courage
and sound judgment that the Secretary's job requires, and I believe it would
be
a grave loss if he were to step down. It would be a shame if
to, 2008-12-11 kello 08:50 +0100, Raphael Hertzog kirjoitti:
Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you
will manage to hurt the project by doing that.
I, on the other hand, think Manoj has explained well why he is doing
things the way he is doing with this vote, and
Josselin Mouette wrote:
What this position requires is the minimal level of morality to not use
it to favor an opinion or another. And this is something Manoj has been
repeatedly doing; first in the GFDL GR, next in the etch firmwares GR,
now in the lenny one.
I do not trust anymore the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:42:20PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
However, I think retitling 5 to: Assume firmware blobs are in source
form unless proven otherwise is worthwhile as is retitling 1 to: Delay
Lenny release until all DFSG issues are resolved.
I wouldn't say this is the secretary
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:38:34PM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:42:20PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
However, I think retitling 5 to: Assume firmware blobs are in source
form unless proven otherwise is worthwhile as is retitling 1 to: Delay
Lenny release until
On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 11 décembre 2008 à 15:38 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho a
écrit :
More strongly, I believe Manoj has repeatedly shown the sort of moral courage
and sound judgment that the Secretary's job requires, and I believe it would
be
a grave loss
On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you
will manage to hurt the project by doing that.
Honestly, at this point, I would really wish that you retired as
secretary because there have been too many conflicts between you
On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:42:20PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
However, I think retitling 5 to: Assume firmware blobs are in source
form unless proven otherwise is worthwhile as is retitling 1 to: Delay
Lenny release until all DFSG issues are
Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you
will manage to hurt the project by doing that.
Honestly, at this point, I would really wish that you retired as
secretary because there have been too many conflicts between you and
various DD while your secretarial work
34 matches
Mail list logo
