]] Philip Hands
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> > ]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> >
> >> I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
> >> dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past
> >> discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-na
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/01/2014 12:20 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
>
> For more background information on the development of this proposal, see
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
>
> I'm
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 02/12/14 at 12:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> If there is consensus that simplicity is preferable and Lucas won't mind
>> dealing with the upcoming ties (in a way that is constitutionally
>> sound), I'll be happy to formally accept an amendment to that end.
>
>
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 01:11:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> How would you implement that? By expliciting making the DPL the
> tie-breaking entity in that case, or by implicitely falling back to
> 5.1.4 "Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility."?
I had in mind to explicitly s
On 02/12/14 at 12:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If there is consensus that simplicity is preferable and Lucas won't mind
> dealing with the upcoming ties (in a way that is constitutionally
> sound), I'll be happy to formally accept an amendment to that end.
I would find it a bit strange to
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:34:16PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/12/14 at 18:44 +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > In the spirit of making things as good as possible before the vote, I'll
> > mention an idea that was kicked around earlier, and seemed to meet with
> > a fair amount of approval, j
Hi,
On 01/12/14 at 18:44 +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
> > On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote:
> >> On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> > As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
> >>
> >> Why not support the a
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:46:01AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> It does not strike me as obvious that popularity correlates to
> competence. Also, it would not be helpful if members of the committee
> were tempted to take the popular side of an argument, against their
> better judgement, because t
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Stefano Zacchiroli
>
>> I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
>> dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past
>> discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named
>> "2-S"; see [1,2] for (the
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
> dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past
> discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named
> "2-S"; see [1,2] for (the last known versions of) alternat
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 03:05:11AM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If it's just unclear, maybe adding "with the first expiry not
> occurring until Dec 31st 2015" to the transition statement would help?
If there is a strong desire to clarify the language further, I wouldn't
mind formally accepting th
On 01/12/14 at 15:43 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Yes. The goal of the proposals is to turn over approximately two per year
> and
> we've just lost three, so I think that's reasonable.
Proposal 1 (Stefano's) puts a lot of emphasis on the removal of the two
most senior members. Imagine for a
On 01/12/14 at 21:12 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But right now, I'm not sure to understand what your main concern is, and
> I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more. With the current
> transitional measure, the proposal 2-S will de facto do nothing for a
> full year. The first expiri
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > +7. Term limit:
> > + 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
> > +who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one
> > +of the two most senior members is se
On Monday 01 December 2014 12:20:25 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[snip]
> +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
> remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
In the special case that a member is replaced, the new member "resets" it's
st
On Monday, December 01, 2014 09:12:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > We discussed, and I thought there was consensus around, the idea that
> > due to the recent ctte churn, the transitional measure was no longer
> > needed.
>
> Y
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 09:12:47PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But right now, I'm not sure to understand what your main concern is, and
> I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more. With the current
> transitional measure, the proposal 2-S will de facto do nothing for a
> full year. Th
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> We discussed, and I thought there was consensus around, the idea that
> due to the recent ctte churn, the transitional measure was no longer
> needed.
You recall correctly, but a simple removal of the transitional measure
would hav
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote:
>> On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
>>
>> Why not support the amendment from Lucas instead which has more or less
>> the same effe
On Monday, December 01, 2014 12:28:58 PM Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:50:27 -0500, Scott Kitterman
said:
> >> -
> >> --
> >>
> >> As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after January 1st,
> >> 2015,
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:50:27 -0500, Scott Kitterman said:
>> ---
>>
>> As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after January 1st,
>> 2015, then the provision of section §6.2.7.1 is taken to have
>> occurred on Januar
On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote:
> On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
>
> Why not support the amendment from Lucas instead which has more or less
> the same effect?
It has the ~same effect righ
On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
Why not support the amendment from Lucas instead which has more or less
the same effect?
Colin
--
Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 830814 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer | +44(
On Monday, December 01, 2014 12:20:25 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
>
> For more background information on the development of this proposal,
> see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
>
> I'm hereby formally submitting t
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
>
> For more background information on the development of this proposal,
> see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
>
> I'm hereby formally submitting
Hi,
On Mon Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
>
> For more background information on the development of this proposal,
> see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
>
> I'm hereby formally submitti
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>===
>The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
>---
>--- constitution.txt.orig
On 2014-12-01 12:20:25, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02
On 01/12/14 11:20, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.3
Stefano Zacchiroli (2014-12-01):
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0
Stefano Zacchiroli (2014-12-01):
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0
Le lundi, 1 décembre 2014, 12.20:25 Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
> dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past
> discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named
> "2-S"; see [1,2]
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
>
> For more background information on the development of this proposal,
> see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
>
> I'm hereby formally submitting
On Mon, 2014-12-01 12:20:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-12-01, 12:20:
===
The Constitution is amended as follows:
---
--- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907
[ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote.
For more background information on the development of this proposal,
see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ]
I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
dashed double lines, and calling for seco
36 matches
Mail list logo
