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 <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

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)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Jakub Wilk writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > * Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 2016-09-20, 16:47: > >5.

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

Ian Jackson writes: > Maybe this is a US/UK difference. In British English "retrospective" > is the term for a rule, law, decision which takes effect with respect > to past actions, events or situations, or for an act which is deemed > effective as if it had

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

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > Seconded (with or without the minor wording nit), since I think this > should be on the ballot. (Not sure yet which optio

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

* Ian Jackson , 2016-09-20, 16:47: 5. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary. s/5/6/ -- Jakub Wilk

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

Ian Jackson writes: >> Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace >> with: >> >> Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private >> >> 1. The Debian Project regrets the non-implementation of the 2005 >> General

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear all, I hereby support this proposal as an additional option on the ballot (but not as a replacement). Regards, Thibaut. Le 21/09/2016 à 14:53, Ian Jackson a écrit : > I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my proposal. > If

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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 proposal. > > If you like my

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:53:28 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my proposal. > If you like my version, or would like to see it on the ballot, please > second it. Seconded > Here it is: > > > Formal proposal for

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

I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my proposal. If you like my version, or would like to see it on the ballot, please second it. Here it is: > Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace > with: > > Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying

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

Bas Wijnen dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:47:36PM +]: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even > > this. > > That is not

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even > this. That is not how Condorcet works.

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

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:50:51PM +0200]: > > Anyway, I do clearly see value in having your proposal as part of the > > ballot (as well as Iain's, if he pushes it on and makes it a formal > > proposal. I will call for a vote... Say, by Friday. Meanwhile, we have > > some time to

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

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:03:17PM +0100]: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private > (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > > I assumed it was, was planning on asking, and with this message

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

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:21:14PM +0100]: > I'm afraid I don't agree. As I have said, I am unhappy with any > option which does not clearly state what if any authority there is for > (or prohibition there is of) declassification of -private. I have > come to this view because it

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

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > I assumed it was, was planning on asking, and with this message > I'm happy to treat it as such. Thanks. Gunnar, do you intend to ad

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)

Ondřej Surý writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later

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

+1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even this. On 20 September 2016 5:58:33 PM Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, I will not comment on the process, just on this proposal:

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

Hi, I will not comment on the process, just on this proposal: (comments inline, real reply below) On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Formal proposal for amendment to Gunnar's GR: delete all, and replace > with: > > Title: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > Anyway, I do clearly see value in having your proposal as part of the > ballot (a

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

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 as a distinct option > > (as it is semantically quite different). > >

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

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)"): > Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:43:43PM +0100]: > > Do I need to re-make my proposal as an amendment to Gunnar's o

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

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:43:43PM +0100]: > 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)

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. Do I need to re-make my proposal as an amendment to Gunnar's or are you h

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 > > > am seconding Gunnar's

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

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 > > am seconding Gunnar's proposal from 20160902041505.gd3...@gwolf.org > >

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

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) Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a

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

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 16:15, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > so, as previously announced I hereby like to propose to hold another GR > to revert the decission of > https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002.en.html as the last 11 years > have shown, that noone is willing to do the work and that

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

Dear Holger, Gunnar Wolf has already proposed a GR last week: 20160902041505.gd3...@gwolf.org https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2016/09/msg4.html I think it would be better to second "his" GR and work out the details during the discussion period rather than starting a new one. Kind