On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 04:19:54PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:34:15PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:49:03AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > I second the below amendment.
> >
> > I think that makes 5 second now, so I'll updat
Hi Kurt,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:34:15PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:49:03AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I second the below amendment.
>
> I think that makes 5 second now, so I'll update the page with it
> later.
It's now over a week since that mail, and the vote
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 07:30:43AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
> Kurt> I really wish Andreas at least fixed the text of his
> Kurt> resolution, I really don't want to hold a vote on a text
> Kurt> that's not clear.
>
> So, you're hoping he would sta
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> I really wish Andreas at least fixed the text of his
Kurt> resolution, I really don't want to hold a vote on a text
Kurt> that's not clear.
So, you're hoping he would state things in terms of a diff or something
a lot closer to a diff?
Basical
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 11:58:33PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Hi. It's not clear that my amendment with a minimal change has quite
> enough support to be on the ballot.
>
>
> would people be comfortable waiting a day or two more to see if we get
> any more seconds and if not, then just going fo
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:49:03AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I second the below amendment.
I think that makes 5 second now, so I'll update the page with it
later.
Kurt
I second the below amendment.
BTW I seconded Andreas's original GR too, but am persuaded by this so
would like to see it on the ballot.
Sam Hartman writes:
> Restated to fix comments received.
> For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous
> amendment.
>
> As I discussed,
Yes. that's the one I recalled that I liked. Seconded.
Scott K
On Wednesday, September 09, 2015 01:08:39 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
> See https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2015/09/msg00016.html
> for the message to second if you choose to do that.
> Rationale copied below.
>
>
> As I discussed
See https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2015/09/msg00016.html
for the message to second if you choose to do that.
Rationale copied below.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix
For those of us that lost track, would you please restate your option? I seem
to remember liking it.
Scott K
On September 8, 2015 7:58:33 PM EDT, Sam Hartman wrote:
>Hi. It's not clear that my amendment with a minimal change has quite
>enough support to be on the ballot.
>
>
>would people be
Hi. It's not clear that my amendment with a minimal change has quite
enough support to be on the ballot.
would people be comfortable waiting a day or two more to see if we get
any more seconds and if not, then just going forward with the one ballot
option?
--Sam
Le vendredi, 4 septembre 2015, 14.28:20 Sam Hartman a écrit :
> Specifically, I formally propose to replace the GR text with:
>
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>
* Sam Hartman , 2015-09-04, 14:28:
- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
Unfortunately, the definition of supe
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:34:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> However, as I've said in <20150903164145.gb23...@grep.be>, I think the
> better fix is to update 6.1.4 as follows:
>
> -4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority)
> +4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 2:1 majority)
Hi Sam,
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:28:20PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajori
Restated to fix comments received.
For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous
amendment.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves
16 matches
Mail list logo
