]] 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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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.
>
>
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/01/2014 02:37 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote ]
>
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby formally submitting an alternative proposal, between
> double-dashed lines below (formally it's an "amendment", but I don't ex
On 01/12/14 13:37, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.3149
Anyone want to sanity-check the section numbering?
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig 2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02 16:04:12.864929363 -0500
@@ -20,10 +20,9 @@
Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the following:
1. The Develo
]] 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
Hi Clint!
This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it
should be thoroughly discussed before I could second it. Also, I'd
prefer to have it as a separate GR than bundled with zack's GR.
* Clint Adams , 2014-12-02, 21:08:
Anyone want to sanity-check the section number
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:13:32AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Acting together with themselves? ;-)
Thank you.
--- /tmp/constitution.txt.orig 2014-12-02 15:54:42.758894286 -0500
+++ /tmp/constitution.txt 2014-12-02 18:17:43.180963356 -0500
@@ -20,10 +20,9 @@
Each decision in the Project
On 12/02/2014 06:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it
> should be thoroughly discussed before I could second it.
I agree some discussion would be useful, but seems like it's a lot
simpler than all the other noodling with term-limits tha
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 06:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it
>> should be thoroughly discussed before I could second it.
>
> I agree some discussion would be useful, but seems like i
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:50:30 PM Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > On 12/02/2014 06:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >> This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it
> >> should be thoroughly discussed before I could s
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50:30PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Disbanding the TC would likely do more harm than good. There would be
> no way to conclude a disagreement.
I believe that there is evidence prior to 1999 that neither of
these sentences is accurate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 10:50:30PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Disbanding the TC would likely do more harm than good. There would be
> no way to conclude a disagreement.
>
> I suggested this before:
>
> TC actions should be limited solely to disagreement mediation, and only
> when
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
