Bug#614907: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

So the deadline I set myself for this is now long past; sorry about that. Responding to comments - call for votes will come in a separate message. On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:20:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:52:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Sorry this is so lo

Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question. === Resolution === The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases

Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012, Steve Langasek wrote: > I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question. > > === Resolution === [...] > === End Resolution === > > Ballot: > > 1. Approve transition plan for node and nodejs > 2. Further discussion I vote 12. Don Armstrong -- "I

Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs"): > === Resolution === .. > Ballot: > > 1. Approve transition plan for node and nodejs > 2. Further discussion I vote: 12 Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:08:17PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > === Resolution === > The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace > collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that > compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases is a

Call for votes on node+nodejs

I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question. === Resolution === The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases

Re: Draft resolution for node+nodejs

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:08:17PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > === Resolution === > The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace > collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that > compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases is a

Re: Call for votes on node+nodejs

Steve Langasek writes: > Ballot: > 1. Approve transition plan for node and nodejs > 2. Further discussion I vote 12. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) pgpRS12K1aCoG.pgp Description: PGP signature

Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

What would you think of TC resolutions to start GRs along the following lines ? Thanks, Ian. = TC RESOLUTION STARTS = 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose the following General Resolution: - GENERAL RES

Re: Number typo in the Constitution

How about this ? = TC RESOLUTION STARTS = 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose the following General Resolution: - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - Constitutional Amendment: Fix duplicate section numb

Draft GR for permitting private discussion

Here is a draft. The idea would be this, followed by my clause 2 re accepting amendments (which I've just sent a copy of to the TC and Secretary). Thanks, Ian. = TC RESOLUTION STARTS = 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution t

Draft GR for supermajority fix

Again, would be followed by my clause 2 re amendments. === TC RESOLUTION STARTS === 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose the following General Resolution: - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - Constitutional Ame

Draft GR for advice re overruling

Again, would be followed by my clause 2 re amendments. === TC RESOLUTION STARTS === 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose a General Resolution, and according to A.1(1) the TC also proposes an amendment. The proposed

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

Ian Jackson writes: > What would you think of TC resolutions to start GRs along the > following lines ? [...] > 2. It is not practical for the TC to vote to accept/reject individual >amendments to the GR proposal. The TC would wish to delegate its >power to accept amendments, to avoid

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

Ian Jackson writes ("Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again"): >Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the >following promise. If any TC member gives notice that the TC >accepts an amendment, then at least one of the following will >happen: Th

Re: Number typo in the Constitution

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:38AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > = TC RESOLUTION STARTS = > > 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in >4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose the following >General Resolution: > >- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS --

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again"): > How would we go about doing those things? I assume that, given the > constitutional requirement, the TC does actually need to vote on > amendments, so we would implement this by possibly batching up the > amend

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:04AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > (a) the TC will use its own power under A.1(1) to arrange that > the amendment appears on the GR ballot as an option; > > (b) the TC will use its power under A.1(1) to propose and > its power under A.1(2)

Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion

Ian Jackson writes: > Here is a draft. The idea would be this, followed by my clause 2 re > accepting amendments (which I've just sent a copy of to the TC and > Secretary). The change to the core of the wording seems fine to me. However, in our previous discussion on IRC, we talked about addin

Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix

Ian Jackson writes: >Constitutional Amendment- TC Supermajority Fix [...] Looks good to me. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Re: Draft GR for advice re overruling

Ian Jackson writes: > === TC RESOLUTION STARTS === > 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in 4.2(1) >of the Debian Constitution to propose a General Resolution, >and according to A.1(1) the TC also proposes an amendment. >The proposed texts of the two resulti

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, > again"): > >Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the > >following promise. If any TC member gives notice that the TC > >accept

Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion"): > The change to the core of the wording seems fine to me. However, in our > previous discussion on IRC, we talked about adding a sentence along the > lines of: > > The Technical Committee is encouraged to hold discussions

Re: Draft GR for advice re overruling

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Draft GR for advice re overruling"): > I think this is good to start with. I suspect there will be a lot of > discussion about what exactly this means, but I think the discussion is > the right next step. Yes. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@list

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again"): > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > The way I imagine this working is that we nominate one TC member (me, > > I guess) to do the work of soliciting second opinions from other TC > > m

Re: Call for votes on node+nodejs

Steve Langasek writes: > I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question. ... > Ballot: > > 1. Approve transition plan for node and nodejs > 2. Further discussion I vote 12. Bdale pgpCDHmjb5PBy.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:11:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >Therefore, in the Debian Constitution amend A.6(3) as follows: > >3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default > option by its required majority ratio is dropped from > consideration. >

Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:38:20AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, > again"): > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > The way I imagine this working is that we nominate one TC member (me, > > > I

Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion

]] Ian Jackson >which inevitably involve discussion of personalitiees, in public. ^^ Typo, I guess? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@l

Re: Call for votes on node+nodejs

* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [120709 01:32]: > I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question. > > === Resolution === > The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace > collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that