* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-27 08:49]:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
> > of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
> > receiv
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
> of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
> received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution
> t
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> said:
>> > What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
>> > taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
>> > was more willing to listen and take on board co
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
> said:
> > What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
> > taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
> > their own opinion with
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
> > was more willing to listen and take on board comments ?
> This sound
[Debian Project Secretary]
> `This is a DRAFT ballot. Voting is not yet open.
> ==
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Friday, 28 Oct 2006
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 10 Nov 2006
Did y
Hi,
As I count, this resolution to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation has
received 2K sponsors, which means that § 4.2.2.2 of the constitution
to be called into action.
,
| 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or el
*seconded*
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM CEST, Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project
I second this proposal (quoted below).
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Polic
Seconed.
* Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 21:40]:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package
Martin Wuertele schrieb am Mittwoch, den 25. Oktober 2006:
I second the quoted proposal
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
> > you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> > with
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:17:05 +0100, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps it would be better if the policy maintainer were someone who
> was more willing to listen and take on board comments ?
This sounds like a canard. What official Board comments have
been disregarded by th
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the
> DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would
> you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
> I don't think you've
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
> taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
> their own opinion without any obligation to consult each other, or
> the developers as a whole. I
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> The process is already unnecessary, Manoj can continue to maintain policy
> through his membership in the technical committee,
This is unfortunately not true. We
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.
Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the
constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like
to ask you to do us a favour and p
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
> > policy package
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:25:58AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> I have not seen an explanation by the DPL why he withdrew the policy
> delegation. But even if I had, I don't think it would change much.
You didn't see much explanation when the delegation was announced either;
nor any effect as a r
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition
> of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee
> delegation"):
>> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>> a) The Technical ctte c
Hi Martin!
Seconded.
You wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in
Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> There are three ways policy can be changed:
> a) The Technical ctte can do so
> b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I hereby second the proposal quoted below.
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Lead
Seconded
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project L
Hurray for another vote. Or how stupid management decisions bring us in
endless discussion loops.
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 21:40 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
> answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
> changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.
OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any a
Dear Anthony, dear all,
Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader [...]
Could we all p
29 matches
Mail list logo
