Hi,
Here is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2025-04-06 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2025-04-19 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2024-04-06 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2024-04-19 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
Here is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2023-04-14 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
Thanks Kurt, this text looks good to me!
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 10:57:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is the draft ballot.
>
> Voting period starts 2022-09-18 00:00:00 UTC
> Votes must be received by 2022-10-01 23:59:59 UTC
>
>This vote is being
Hi,
This is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2022-09-18 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-10-01 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
Hi,
Here is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2022-04-03 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-04-16 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
An other update:
Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution
Updated ballot:
Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution a
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:09:20 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Choice 3: Reaffirm public voting
>
>
> ince we can either have [...]
I assume this was meant to start with "Since"?
smcv
I don't think you updated this template after the last GR:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 06:09:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
> [ ] Choice 2: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and
> allow verification
> [ ] Ch
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on a regarding Richard Stallman's
readmission to the FSF board
This vote is being conducted as required by the D
Here is a draft ballot for the DPL election:
Voting period starts 2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel
Hi,
This is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2020-04-05 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2020-04-18 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is a new draft ballot:
>
> Here is a new one:
And even a newer one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:0
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new draft ballot:
Here is a new one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems an
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> It doesn't count lines from the start, or anything like that.
> So yes, I think it works the way we would hope.
Note that the checking of the "title" is not very good:
# Checking the whole damned line was cr
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft ballot"):
> As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
> it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
> look at the source.
The vote.d.o page had a link to this
https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/devotee.
Hi,
Here is a new draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Import
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking pro
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:53:10PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
What do you think there is no consensus about that is relevant?
I did not see anybody sponsor Ian's GR yet, so it seems to me I
have no other option than to proc
How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
Hi Kurt,
On 04.12.19 20:18, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote:
Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL
election also had the full text of the options.
I
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL
election also had the full text of the options.
Kurt
Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
I don't know if the text should be in the ballot.
I did ask someone who has not been in this discussion to review the
ballot without the text.
They are not a DD.
But they found just the choice titles entirely mystifying.
But it would be really long with all the text.
Hi,
Do you think it's useful to also have the text of all the options
in the ballot?
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This
This is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2019-04-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-04-20 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 12:46:56AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Here is the draft ballot.
> >
> > Thanks for it!
> >
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Here is the draft ballot.
>
> Thanks for it!
>
> This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the
> vote. I kn
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Here is the draft ballot.
Thanks for it!
This draft does not contain any information regarding the secrecy of the
vote. I know that the vote will be secret (according to the
consttution), but in the recentish past there was a thr
Here is the draft ballot.
Kurt
Voting period starts 2017-04-02 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2017-04-15 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:21:11PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the draft ballot:
>
> Voting period starts Sun Apr 3 00:00:00 UTC 2016
> Votes must be received by Sat Apr 16 23:59:59 UTC 2016
I've changed that to:
Voting period starts
Hi,
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts Sun Apr 3 00:00:00 UTC 2016
Votes must be received by Sat Apr 16 23:59:59 UTC 2016
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [2015-04-01 01:03 +0200]:
> Voting period starts Wed Apr 1 00:00:00 UTC 2015
> Votes must be received by Tue Apr 14 23:59:59 UTC 2015
Or just go with a standard:
2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC
--
.''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft
: :' : proud Debian developer
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:57:30AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx , 2015-04-01, 00:35:
> >>Here is the draft ballot:
> >>
> >>Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
> >>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC
* Kurt Roeckx , 2015-04-01, 00:35:
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
That should of course be:
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Wednesday, April
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:34:01AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Here is the draft ballot:
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
That should of course be:
Voting p
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org
On 04/12/08 at 09:44 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:05:39AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> >
> > > Also, you removed "and all the contributors" in Choice2 of the ballot
> > > (Choice 1
> > > of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of
> >
Le Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:05:39AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
>
> > Also, you removed "and all the contributors" in Choice2 of the ballot
> > (Choice 1
> > of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of the
> > GR,
> > the wording of the choices has no role in iterpr
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:44:32AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply
> > ASAP.
>
> Hi Neil
>
>
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply
> ASAP.
Hi Neil
The vote page has three mutually exclusive texts, with headers named "Choice
1", "Choice 2&q
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:01:36PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or
> > concensus.
> > [ ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concen
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:21:16PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or concensus.
> [ ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or concensus,
> leading to a new proposal.
s/concensus/consensus/ ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Hi all,
Here's the draft ballot for the GR. Please note the timescale and reply
ASAP.
Thanks,
Neil
==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Thursday, 4th Dec 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 U
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 06:35:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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
> >
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 wh
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081101 09:26]:
> Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold.
I'm sorry to say but that happens only if the resolution says so ("If
such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers, or if it is
proposed by the Technical Committe
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>
> > > For reference, this will now not take place, as the original GR has been
> > > amended to not include the decision reversal text.
> >
> > I find it mildly entertaining that this vot
Le Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:35:36AM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
>
> Also note that 2K seconds puts any decision by a delegate on hold. The
> immediate vote then is held to see if it stays on hold until the real GR
> is done. So the only person who'd be in his rights to complain is
> Joerg an
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > For reference, this will now not take place, as the original GR has been
> > amended to not include the decision reversal text.
>
> I find it mildly entertaining that this vote did not take place
> because apparently it takes "a couple of days, [...]
On Fri, Oct 31 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> I find it mildly entertaining that this vote did not take place
> because apparently it takes "a couple of days, [...] and sometimes
> longer" [0] to set up an "immediate" vote. I'm sure there were
> very good reasons [1] to not rush things in this pa
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:42:30AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > 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 th
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 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 per 4.2.2
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 12:14, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > You could give them an incentive to do so...
> WTF do you think did I do with my mail? Would you please start to *read*
> before you reply?
Oh, thanks, I read before I replied... maybe you can make yourself understood
better and *write* p
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
>> sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
>> *WONT* do anything except creating needless work?
> You could give them an incentive to do so...
WTF
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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 wan
Hi Jörg,
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 00:21, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
> sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
> *WONT* do anything except creating needless work?
You could give them an incentive to do so...
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html
I've added Neil McGovern under Secretary to
webwml/english/intro/organization.data
Hope that's OK,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://w
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:21:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this
> will be implemented within the next few weeks.
Joerg,
in your answer to Aurélien, you wrote that your announcment was "a new policy
to get implemented". Bu
>> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- 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 reform delayed until GR decided
>> > [ ] Choice 3: Furt
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 discus
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 period followed by a full GR?
It's the reverse. The sponsorship o
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 Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands unt
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
>
> I don't
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:
> >
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Be
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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab
also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
I don't understand the difference between those two.
--
.''`. martin f. kraff
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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
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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership r
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:11:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, 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 re
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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
> > c
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> (...)
> (one of the people who could ruin this vote is going away for a busness
---><
> trip this week, and the other one is new at this task).
> (...)
> manoj
You meant "run", huh ?
--
Swis
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert 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 members
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.
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- 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 reform delayed until GR decided
> [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says:
Because it takes time to set up a vote, and it requires
attention from the vote taker at the beginning and end of the vote, and
the times reflect the prep time required (one of the
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
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,
>
On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, 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
Why should we wait unt
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 per 4.2.2 of the constitution.
Attached below is the draft ballo
Hi,
I forgot that some people still can't deal with ë in an
email. Here is a revised ballot.
manoj
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, March 30th, 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59
Hi,
The following is a draft ballot for comment. The order of the
candidates names was determined by a virtual coin toss.
manoj
==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, March 30th, 2008
Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FYI, I was today congratulated for my honourable 4th place in the DPL
> elections.
And which news service did they read that on? :-)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#cod
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would argue that the ballot has a similar clearcut
> distinction: The ranking is the number the voter enters, the ordering
> of the choices has the prefix "Choice", and actually precedes the
> actual option.
FYI, I was today congratu
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:21:02 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:46:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
>> >> >> > voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something
>> >> >> > that i
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:46:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
> >> >> > voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that
> >> >> > is inherently confusing.
>
> > Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:08:45 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
> bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them
> that you have to know about, they simply have the names of the
> recipients.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:08:45 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA
>> >> >> mangled ballots
>> >>
>> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases wit
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
> >> >> ballots
> >>
> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> >> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is
>
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:02:22 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:13:03AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
>> >> ballots
>>
>> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voter
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:13:03AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
> >> ballots
>
> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently
> > co
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:04:06 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
>> ballots
> It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> yes, bu
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled ballots
It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters, yes, but
if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently confusing.
> Given th
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:43:31 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> We strayed from the real point here... the point is that these
> internal variables are completely irrelevant to the voters and
> should be avoided. The program can detect the line "[ ... ] Option
> name" just as easily
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:45:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> [ ] Choice 1: Wouter Verhelst
> > ...
> >> [ ] Choice A: None Of The Above
>
> > Would it be possible to use just letters, rather than both letters
> > and numbers ? That will make everything a little less confusing -
> > in p
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:06:34 +, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2007:
> Draft ballot"):
>> [ ] Choice 1: Wouter Verhelst
> ...
>> [ ] Choice A: None Of The Above
> Would it be p
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
