On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:09:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thus, I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
---
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
made to the Debian
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:11:58AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
But there's more than that. In the last year as part of the DPL Team,
people have been criticising the last year for the lack of reports. But
I don't remember a single one sending in a mail like Dear DPL[-Team],
what happened
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
2. encourages authors of all works to make those works
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
sources for of few types
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
modification so that purchasers of their hardware can
exercise their freedom to
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
The Debian Project:
(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
free software, including the availability of source for all types
of files.
So, we strive for 100% free software, whatever
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
would like to see. Without further conditions is so broad that it seems
to
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
So, what progress has been
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:07:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
Ok, since the proposal in its amended by Manoj form passed, we need to add an
amendment to this proposal, accordying to Manoj, so that we don't have two
proposals in effect at the same time, leaving it a full mess.
Which 2
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is a new proposal, which was not in the ballot, because Manoj hurried the
election along the way, while he knew the kernel team was working on a better
proposal.
Please do not blame our secretary for following the
I want to amendment the following proposal:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the firmware mentioned below
designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually
as
hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
p
- Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
+ Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
this separation
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ 0 ] Choice 2: The
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect.
In voting systems
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:00:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
---
The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform
binary-only packages uploads
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 03:27:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The error rate on requeue requests that reach me is significant, even from
people who are well-informed and involved in the process (e.g., fellow
release-team members). Maybe they're
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:31:17AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Hamish Moffatt:
Do you think it's likely that it can boot the kernel and run the build
environment without crashing, but produce broken binaries?
We've got a few cases where emulated builds on amd64, sparc64 and
s390x
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:16:34PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
Am I the only one having problem authenticating the
signature on this mail?
I have the same problem.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
or the tech-ctte's involvement in technical improvement of Debian before
a conflict exists.
Well, with my Policy delegate hat on, I'd certainly welcome more help in
that area, but on the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi all,
As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
as
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.
You have a total of 3 times proceedural instead of procedural in this
mail.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:20:30PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
Hi Neil
Thanks for the prompt clarification.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think option 3 means the same as option 1. The decision stands and we
can later overrule it by a full GR if we want. Or does option 1 mean that
we'll also have this 2 week discussion
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 15th Nov 2008
So when
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
| Therefore the Debian project resolves that
| a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do
| prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not
| require it,
| b) we however
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
Hi,
I've been thinking about this proposal for some time, and I probably
should have send this some time ago. At least some people seem to
have had simular ideas, so I wonder why nobody propsed anything like
this.
The idea is to create a new section that contains files like
firmware images and
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:34:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The idea is to create a new section that contains files like
firmware images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware
to make it fully functional. It is not meant for drivers
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:02:27PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kurt Roeckx]
The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware
images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it
fully functional. It is not meant for drivers that run on the host
CPU
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
While I think it would be reasonable to include sourceless firmware on our
CDs and DVDs, I don't think this is actually a very good solution to the
problem we face:
- if they're included on the official Debian images, they
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:16:47PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:02:27PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kurt Roeckx]
The idea is to create a new section that contains files like firmware
images and FPGA data that gets written to the hardware to make it
fully
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:55:55AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL elections.
Your nomination has been received and is valid.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:53:10AM +, Per Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Debian Project Secretary
secret...@debian.org wrote:
To be valid, a Debian Developer needs to send a signed email in
which he nominates himself to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org
list.
Can't
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:11:16PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:53:10AM +, Per Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Debian Project Secretary
secret...@debian.org wrote:
To be valid
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 01:36:04PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
The nomination period for the DPL election is almost over. If you
want to nominate yourself as canidate you need to send a signed
mail to the
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project
Secretary wrote:
Hi,
The nomination period has ended and we're now in the campaigning
period. We have 2 candidates:
- Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org
- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org
The page at http
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
Positions (in no particular order):
1 The supermajority
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
It does not say how to interprete
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:52:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The point is, language isn't math, and as a result the same
text will often mean one thing to one person, and something entirely
else to another.
Which is my point. And people do have different opinions about
it. So you now
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
Please make clear what is part of the proposal and what is not.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:35:32PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:56:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:51:37PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary
will fix
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL START
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:25:34PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:20PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26:59AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
PROPOSAL START
=
General
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:12:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions.
PROPOSAL
Hi,
This is a draft for the 2009 DPL election ballot.
==
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Sunday, March 29th, 2009
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, April 11th, 2009
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:49:57AM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
2009/3/19 Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr:
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your
consideration.
Asking for seconds.
- - - - - - -
General Resolution made
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. [...]
I realise there
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:01:38AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Hi Kurt,
can you please report on issue in the voting software that prevented
some ballots to be processed? I sent my vote twince on April 9 and April
11 and got the following answer back:
Hi Luigi,
I wish you contacted me
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:46:54AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 13/apr/09, alle ore 01:43, Kurt Roeckx ha scritto:
I wish you contacted me about this before so that we could find a
solution to get your vote counted.
Thanks for your report. I did not contact you before, since I
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:23:56PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be possible to add a pointer to the frequently encountered
problems to the devotee error reply? This would most likely reduce the
burden on the secretary during the voting period and allow people to
solve the problems at
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:29:22PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I was thinking of setting up a FAQ.
.oO( Why not a Debian package?, then you would gain BTS support, and
maybe people can help with software maintenance more
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
supermajority, it
Please sign your message if you want to propose a GR.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:38:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL elections.
Platform will follow according to the schedule suggested by Kurt.
Your
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:02:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I will run as well.
Your nomination has been received and is valid.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:05:03PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
I've been thinking a lot about this, and I consider that I could try to
improve Debian from the role of DPL.
I hereby nominate myself for DPL.
I can only find the key CB27020A4D0F68ED63CFF1CC940B94C75B48FFAE
for you in
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:30:31PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
I hereby nominate myself for DPL.
Your nomination has been received and is valid.
Kurt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 08:58:35PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project
Secretary wrote:
Hi,
We're now a few days into the campaigning period. The candidates
are:
- Stefano Zacchiroli
- Wouter Verhelst
- Charles Plessy
- Margarita Manterola
The page at http://www.debian.org/vote/2010
I think that one of issues we have is that there is alot of work
to be done by some teams, some of them even regularaly mail that
they need more members, but they seem to have a hard time keeping
the numbers up, burning the other team members out.
What are your ideas to make sure those teams keep
Hi,
All the rebuttals have been added to the platforms now, but
they're not yet available on all the mirrors.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
The unofficial results are at:
http://master.debian.org/~secretary/leader2010/
The winner is Stefano Zacchiroli.
There were some problems with the automaticly generated mail that
should have been send to the list. You'll also notice that the
graph has some issues. I will look at fixing this
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:04:32PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Wholeheartly seconed, for all the longstanding website translators.
This isn't signed with a key in the keyring.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:42:58PM +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
I second this proposal.
This message was signed with a key not in the keyring.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be
extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into
second-class members of
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:13:12PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:08:50PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away
for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new
complete draft here
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:45:52AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded.
Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I
can tell this wasn't meant
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
My question was basicly if you wanted to make that change
at that time. My interpretation is that you didn't propose
to change it at that time, but that you would do it at some
later time.
The question was which part
Hi,
We'll need to elect a DPL soon. The current plan for the
timeline is:
Nomination: Saturday March 5, 00:00 - Friday March 11, 23:59
Campaigning: Saturday March 12, 00:00 - Friday April 1, 23:59
Voting: Saturday April 2, 00:00 - Friday April 15, 23:59
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 04:29:41PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL elections.
Your nomination has been received and is valid.
Kurt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project
Secretary wrote:
The platform will be made available when it's ready at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2011/vote_001
I expect it to be there on monday.
It's available now, atleast on the mirror I used.
Kurt
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 10:30:04AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So, it's that time again.
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
[request for nominations]
I hereby nominate myself as a prospective DPL.
Your nomination has been received
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:17:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
I hereby nominate myself as a prospective DPL.
Your nomination has been received and is valid.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:26:55AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
I hereby nominate myself
Hi,
As your platfrom indicates, you have disappeared from the Debian
project before. Some DPLs started with alot of energy, but somewhat
faded during their term and then disappeared. Do you think there
is a chance of this happening to you?
Kurt
PS: I commited the platform some time ago, it
Hi,
This is the first call for votes for the Debian Project Leader
Elections 2012.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Sunday, April 1st, 2012
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, April 14th, 2012
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:32:03AM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
Q: What will be the procedure for maintaining/updating the statement,
once voted?
A: The gist of the statement will be fixed by the GR. But in order to
avoid needing a vote for every minor tweak, language improvements can be
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:21:10AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi all,
I hope that our constitution has the answer to that question. If a GR needed
self-locking dispositions, that would go against the idea of having a
constitution at all. My personal opinion is that for things that
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote:
I think I'm late but...
As long as nobody called for the vote, I don't see a problem
adding more seconds.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:32:41PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE
The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we
welcome you. We welcome contributions from
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:34:42PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
Dear Debian Developers,
since the minimum discussion period is now over and since no amendments
have been proposed, I'm hereby calling for a vote.
TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE
The
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 07:26:33PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Le 16/05/2012 00:28, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
I'll start the vote during the weekend. But I need to think about
the name of the option, I wasn't very happy with it when I wrote
that.
Has the issue mentioned in [1] been taken
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Rejected amendments, i.e. those
that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
period.
I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted
(have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Rejected amendments, i.e. those
that result in additional ballot options, do not reset
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 06:36:14PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On 3 Apr 2013, at 17:29, Moray Allan mo...@sermisy.org wrote:
The campaign period already finished a few days ago
Yes, I was aware of that when I posted, but RL interfered with me asking
prior to voting opening. I sought
1 - 100 of 541 matches
Mail list logo
