Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I could bypass the whole thing and claim a minor change. That's probably
> cheating, but then again, it is what I had always intended, so from that
> POV I guess it isn't.
> So unless someone objects, the below is now the proposal:
The current constitution is kind of w
... let's try that with cryptography this time around.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:58:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> > Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 a
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
> Wouter> ali
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Hi Kurt,
Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
Wouter> alive as long as it has not yet expired, but that it cannot
Wouter> be r
Hi Kurt,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Ping?
>
> I've pushed this to the website on Tuesday. I forgot to mail
> that I've done so.
Ah, yes; indeed. I missed that, obviously.
Looking it over one
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > >
> > > > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> > >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> > > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
Hi Kurt,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:54:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Text of the GR
> > > ==
> > >
> > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> > > constitution under point 4.1.2
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> >
> > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> > requires a 3:1 majority.
> >
> > Sections
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
>
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
>> seconders would re-affirm that they agree with the changes I propose,
>> an
On 2021-11-23 02 h 50, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
>> Section A
>> -
>>
>> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>>
I second the below amendament.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verh
Bill Allombert writes:
> Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
> I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I was missing the
> context, that fundamentally I did not understand what the result would
> be.
Yes, absolutely. Hopefully should be available by the end of
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Hello Russ,
Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
I tried to read it several time and each time I felt I was
Let's try this signed. Seconded
On 2021/11/26 12:35, Kyle Robbertze wrote:
On 2021/11/23 09:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but cruc
On 2021/11/23 09:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wro
Simon McVittie writes:
> Also a TC member but writing only on my own behalf. I agree with Gunnar
> that NOTA seems fine as a default for TC decisions (except for choosing
> the TC chair, which is special-cased to have no default).
Okay, sounds good. That's multiple people in support and no one
I've lost track of who wrote:
> > > Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> > > to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> > > decisions.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 10:28:55 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I would prefer the change to extend al
Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800]:
> >>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
> >> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
> >> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
> >>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:00:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> > better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/d
Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:
>> Yes, indeed, no problem. Currently, I'm aware of only one correction
> I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :)
>> 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a amen
Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>> This is now at:
>> https://www.debian.
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
> This is now at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
Thank you!
> I did not add any of the
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
This is now at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
indi
Don Armstrong writes:
> Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?
Thanks to Wouter's work, here's a wdiff against the webwml of the current
constitution. This diff format makes a total hash of 6.3.1 and section A,
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/devel/constitution.wml
> (which is a version of the constitution with the
Holger Levsen writes:
> I *believe* you'll find it in english/devel/constitution.wml in
> g...@salsa.debian.org:webmaster-team/webwml
> (*After* the GR when the change is actually going to be made please note
> that there are files like english/devel/constitution.1.$x.wml...)
Thank you!
--
Ru
I second this.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Section A
> > > -
> > >
> > > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> > >
> > > A.1.1. Strik
* Wouter Verhelst: " Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)" (Tue,
23 Nov 2021 09:53:50 +0200):
> aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
Applies for me as well...
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> >
> > The Debia
aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > Section A
> > -
> >
... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> Section A
> -
>
> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>
> A.1.1. Strike the sentence "The maximum discussion peri
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:54AM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> Seconded.
Your message isn't signed.
Kurt
* Wouter Verhelst: " Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)" (Mon,
22 Nov 2021 17:15:34 +0200):
> Text of the GR
> ==
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This Gene
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 22/11/2021 at 16:15:34+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at
> 2021-11-22T16:15:27+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
> am looking for seconds.
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> Much of
tl;dr: I second this.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Text of the GR
> ==
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> S
I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
am looking for seconds.
Rationale
=
Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this
amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different,
on purpose.
Our voting system, which n
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
> constitution that I an start from? I assume it's somewhere in the
> www.debian.org machinery, which is something I've never worked with before
> and am not sure how
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> > specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?
> Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
> constitution that I an start from? I
tl;dr: I second this.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Effect of the General Resolution
>
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
>>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
> being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
> of the resolution becom
Russ Allbery wrote on 20/11/2021 at 19:04:07+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at
> 2021-11-20T19:04:07+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
>
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require
Russ> a 3:1 majority, and am seeking sponsors.
I second your proposed GR regarding voting systems improvements and do
not object to the minor change Philip pointed out and you accep
Philip Hands writes:
> Although, I think you should fix A.2.3 which currently says:
>> ... sponsors stepping forward, it removed from the draft ballot.
>^
> which I'd suggest needs an 'is', or perhaps 'will be', between 'it' &
> 'removed'
Sigh, thank you. I
Russ Allbery writes:
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
>
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
> process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
> ready to proc
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-20 10:04]:
I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
majority, and am seeking sponsors.
Rationale
=
We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
47 matches
Mail list logo
