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 conducted as required by t
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
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.
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 Important
> > [ ] Choice 4: Support n
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 progress
> [ ] Choice 5: Support
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.
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!
> >
> > This draft does not contain any informatio
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 know that the vote will be secret
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 thread
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 2016-04-03 00:00:00
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 on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
> >
> >That should
* 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 1st
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 period starts 00
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
>
> The vote page has three mutually exclusive tex
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" and "Choice 3" that respectively cor
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
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...
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 3 times "proceedural"
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
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.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- 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 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
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your
> recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution.
Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse public?
Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse even sent?
How about
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:01:10AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask
> > for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the
> > constitution.
>
> Manoj has not done *ANYTHING
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask
> for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the
> constitution.
Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far.
Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* i
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the
> firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started.
Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your
recall as secretary, n
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:50:41AM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Make sure you have read the proposal in detail.
>
> A little plea for the next GR discussion season: when people discuss a
> GR, please keep in mind that the disc
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Make sure you have read the proposal in detail.
A little plea for the next GR discussion season: when people discuss a
GR, please keep in mind that the discussion will become material that
people would like to read before decidin
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments
>>> need to be in fast, though.
>
>> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Apparently, the proposer and the secretary both felt that the
> form on the ballot was OK -- or do you have a better idea what the
> proposer of the GR wanted? [...]
If only the proposer and secretary need to be happy with the ballot,
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:28:15 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Previously, the proposal has been named on the ballot, such as:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/03/msg3.html
Very short proposal, so full text was on the ballot as
well. Also, more than a up/
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "Amend the
> > constitution" is not descriptive enough.
>
> Since there is only one issue where voting is open, anyone
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments
>> need to be in fast, though.
> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "Amend the
> constitution" is not d
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:56:02 +0100, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any comments
>> need to be in fast, though.
> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "Amend the
> constitution" is not d
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any
> > comments need to be in fast, though.
>
> Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please? "Amend the
> constitution" is not descriptive enough.
It's
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. Any
> comments need to be in fast, though.
Could you name the amendment on the ballot, please?
"Amend the constitution" is not descriptive enough.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://pe
On 25 Feb 2006, Arthur de Jong outgrape:
>
>> [ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all
>> cases
>
> I would personally like to see this without the "in all cases" as an
> author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or
> interpretation of the license that co
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections
> present
All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least:
* [4D, 4E] Copyright statements
* [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled "History"
* [4F] The permission notice, whic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
I would personally like to see this without the "in all cases" as an
author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or
interpretation of the license that coul
Hi,
Well, obviously this is not about "procedures to publish posts
from the debian-private mailing list" .
==
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to address
the Debian projects position on the GNU
80 matches
Mail list logo
