Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:49:51AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sat Mar 14 19:40, Russ Allbery wrote: > > It makes an advisory project statement about the project interpretation of > > the FD. DDs can choose to follow that interpretation or not as they > > choose in their own work, but I wou

Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:12:11PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > > > | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce > > > | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large >

Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)

Hi On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:21:57AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Hi, > > I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, > so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. Thank you for proposing this option. I really like it's constructive tone. > > Th

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

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 +, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > > > - - -=-=-=-=-

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192 > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership refor

Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership > > >post becom

Re: State of the GR's: Part 2 - Position statement on the DPL and Dunc-Tank

rhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:08:38 +0200 > > Good signature from 3DFC2C62AF79D29E Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > B) > From: Gaudenz Steinlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMA

Re: Counter-proposal: reaffirm support for the elected DPL

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:39:52AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote: > > I'm sorry for the typo, it is Dunc-Tank. Updated text attached. > > How embarassing. I keep making typos, I hope this cheers readers up. > > -- > Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---

Re: Question to all candidates about the NM process

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:12:00AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > 2. Asks for too broad knowledge > > > > It has been suggested several times over the years that we ask

Re: DPL reports [was: Re: Reflections about the questions for the candidates]

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:59:34PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:05:04AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > > Hi Kevin. > > > I'm not sure that I understand the reasons why the efforts couldn't be > > reported, at least to debian-private. Are they one or more of the > > fo

Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:00:54AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10820 And the second quote is from: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please also not the text immediately following the cited p

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

[ Removed d-devel, IMHO it's enough to discuss this on d-vote ] On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:19:55AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > > The first ty

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of > publications: > > 1) Selected Readers > 2) Selected Content > > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of > debian-private, but restrictions wi

Re: dak and the debian infrastructure

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:45:08PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:46:45AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Sven Luther wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:34:19PM +0900, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't think any thing is actually "hidden". If you mean "not pac

other candidates opinion about project scud

My questions are directed to the candidates that are not part of "project scud". What is your opinion about the proposed DPL team? Where do you see problems with this approach? What are the key benefits? If you were elected DPL, would you also form a similar team? Why (not)? If yes, would you as