Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
==
The Constitution is amended as follow
On 18 November 2014 20:33, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
>
Looks good to me.
> + 3. At each review ro
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks for your feedback. New draft attached implementing (almost all)
the changes you suggested. The GR text is now also available at
http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=summary
which also c
Hi,
> 6.2. Composition
>
> 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
>usually have at least 4 members.
> 2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
>recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose
>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:15:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
>7. Term limit:
> 1. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically
>reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the
>terms of the 2 most senior members automatically expire
>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "provided /they/ were appointed"
>
> This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a potential
> problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle. I find your
Hi Don,
On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This patch is simple, but:
> -1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
> +1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 9 Developers, and should
[...]
> But if this is at all controversial, then we c
Hi zack@,
Thanks for pushing this subject forward, it's a constitutional change I
would likely second.
Le mardi, 18 novembre 2014, 14.15:25 Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > "provided /they/ were appointed" reads to me like it might mean that
> > if only one of them was appointed that long ago, m
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
Updated draft below.
Changelog is:
- fix
Hi,
On Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 21:49:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (FWIW, I _think_ I prefer an even number here... and despite labeling
> this a "game changer" I'm not sure I care that much about this
> change... arg and this might sound like it could be misunderstood
> again...)
The real reason to use an odd number is
Hi,
On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The real reason to use an odd number is to avoid having to use the
> casting vote in the CTTE. Considering that we've used the casting vote
> exactly once in the entire history of Debian, I'm not sure that
> including this is worth the eff
[ secretary: question for you at the end ]
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:21:42PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Maybe this:
[ I've addressed this in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00165.html ]
> Also, one of the things that would also be nice to fix is to make the
> max number of
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:44:43PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a
> > potential problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle.
> > I find your suggested wording not immediate, though, and I wonder if
> > a/ someone e
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
De
> Even if it were as ready, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a
> separate GR. Voting once instead of twice is nice for everyone, but
> conflating two separate decisions in a single GR has been proven to be
> unwise in the past. And I'm especially wary of doing so with a
> constitutional c
Given that many contributors and loyal Debian users did not get a chance to vote on the controversial introduction of systemd in Debian, we believe that such a possibility must exist, albeit unofficially.
http://www.foss.rs/topic/2992-voting-about-systemd/#entry48202
Therefore, we invite you to
Given that many contributors and loyal Debian users did not get a chance to vote on the controversial introduction of systemd in Debian, we believe that such a possibility must exist, albeit unofficially.
http://www.foss.rs/topic/2992-voting-about-systemd/#entry48202
Therefore, we invite you t
*(See: Systemd people being assholes to Bruce Perens
https://lwn.net/Articles/620879/ )
Synth and organ in the cold infinite vastness.
As if abandoned. Seeing bright lights, but feeling no warmth.
Kind of like what old-guard Free/Opensource contributors
feel from the SystemD coupists in the space
Le mercredi, 19 novembre 2014, 00.12:27 Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > Even if it were as ready, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have
> > a
> > separate GR. Voting once instead of twice is nice for everyone, but
> > conflating two separate decisions in a single GR has been proven to
> > be unwise
20 matches
Mail list logo
