On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:11:58AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
>
> But there's more than that. In the last year as part of the DPL Team,
> people have been criticising the last year for the lack of reports. But
> I don't remember a single one sending in a mail like "Dear DPL[-Team],
> what happene
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:18:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore,
>
> 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our
> users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and
>
> 2. encourages authors of all works to make those
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don't need
> > sources for of few types of works. My main problem with this is that
> > still a little vague about which types of works don't require source.
>
> What pr
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:16:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > > Point 3 then seems to go the other way around and say we don'
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
> not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
> modification so that purchasers of their hardware can
> exercise their freedom t
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> The Debian Project:
>(a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent
>free software, including the availability of source for all types
>of files.
So, we "strive for 100% free software", whatever s
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:36:37AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> > would like to see. "Without further conditions" is so broad that it se
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:02:13PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:40:41PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> > > issue; however, it is not yet finally so
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:07:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, since the proposal in its amended by Manoj form passed, we need to add an
> amendment to this proposal, accordying to Manoj, so that we don't have two
> proposals in effect at the same time, leaving it a full mess.
Whic
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> This is a new proposal, which was not in the ballot, because Manoj hurried the
> election along the way, while he knew the kernel team was working on a better
> proposal.
Please do not blame our secretary for following the constitu
I want to amendment the following proposal:
> === START OF PROPOSAL ===
> Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
> designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually
> as
> hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded in
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this se
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
> > [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
> > pending a vote
> > [ 0 ] Choice 2:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
> > But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
> >
> > And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would h
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:00:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> ---
>
> The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform
> combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform
> binary-only packages uplo
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 03:27:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The error rate on requeue requests that reach me is significant, even from
> > people who are well-informed and involved in the process (e.g., fellow
> > release-team members). Maybe th
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:31:17AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Hamish Moffatt:
>
> > Do you think it's likely that it can boot the kernel and run the build
> > environment without crashing, but produce broken binaries?
>
> We've got a few cases where emulated builds on amd64, sparc64 and
> s
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 05:16:34PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am I the only one having problem authenticating the
> signature on this mail?
I have the same problem.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > or the tech-ctte's involvement in technical improvement of Debian before
> > a conflict exists.
>
> Well, with my Policy delegate hat on, I'd certainly welcome more help in
> that area, bu
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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,
>
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
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
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 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
> >
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
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> | Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do
> | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not
> | require it,
> | b) we howe
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:40:10PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> [2019-11-15 11:52] Ian Jackson
> > Dmitry, I suggest instead, this change to your original text:
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Pack
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> The secretary requested that I have each choice be self-contained.
> So I'm folding the header into each choice.
>
> The line of dashes separates each choice.
> I formally propose these general resolution options.
Can you please cl
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:08:36PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, these need to be framed in terms of policy, not
> RCness.
Note that we also have delegated policy editors:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/08/msg2.html
Kurt
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Choice hartmans1: Affirm Init Diversity
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
> the following statement describing our current position on Init
> systems, Init system diversity, and the use of sy
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:01:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I also don't think it is appropriate to consider something overriding a
> > delegate unless it is overiding a specific decision of a delegate.
>
> For the record, it's not possible in this case to override a decision of
> the delega
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:57:04PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It is not clear to me who can "accept" it - would that me be as the
> proposer of this version, or Sam as the original proposer ? Perhaps
> Kurt's life would be made easier if Sam would, at the appropriate
> point, indicate his approva
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:37:46PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 18 Nov 2019 at 04:57PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> >> Ian Jackson writes:
> >> > + (with no substantial effect on systemd installations)
> >>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> Seconded.
So that was the 5th second, and I've pushed that to the webiste.
Note that it's still the original proposal, Ian doesn't seem to
have accepted Russ's change yet.
Kurt
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:29:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
> systemd"):
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > > Seconded.
> >
> > So th
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:07:44PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I would note that as the proposer of an option with enough seconds, I
> can also call for a vote when the minimum discussion period has
> elapsed. You can increase the minimum discussion period, but only to
> 3 weeks. IMO it would
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 02:41:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
> systemd"):
> > The update should be available on the website now.
>
> Hi, thanks. I looked at the version here
>
>
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:51AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
>
> Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
> Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
> >> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems
> >>
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote:
>
> Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat).
That email wasn't signed.
Kurt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:54:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
>
> > To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started
> > November 16.
> > So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring on
> > November 30.
>
> Your acceptance of my amendment
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>
> Kurt> I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
> Kurt> current interpretation is different. The page shows t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> nothing
> but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> changes.)
I was unable to verify your signature.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:08:08PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.
>
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
>
> Dmitry titled his posting &
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:45:21AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): >
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > >
> > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
&
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:44:09PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:33 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:34:13PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
>
> Sam> Dear Secretary:
>
> Sam> Based on discussion, I'd like to replace Proposal A with the
> Sam> following amended text; I accept this amendment.
>
> Sigh, and introduced a typo in
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:53:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
> >
> >
> > Kurt> I always struggle with trying to underst
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:00:00AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> It's my current interpretation that the title you gave was
> Kurt> part of the text, and so not under my control. Which is why 4
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> [change removing regret about having another GR]
>
> > Unless anyone objects by 1400 UTC on Wednesday, I intend to accept
> > this amendment, assuming that th
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 06:01:53PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>
> On 11/26/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > One question. Should I extend the voting period to give people more
> > time to vote given that holidays are near. I'm not sure it would help
> > much because I think the primary eff
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:54:40PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> > it being subject to a plebi
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 09:07:19AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I'm definitely fine with Kurt's revision to the title of Proposal A
> given the similar change to proposal E and Ian's comments.
>
>
> If I'm permitted to make the following change under A.1(6) (that is,
> permitted to make the fol
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:10:44PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> "which is not the what the user wanted"
>
> "not the what": s/the//
>
> The proposal also contains Markdown syntax (**, ``) which imho should
> be converted to HTML on the web site.
If Ian can confirm that the intention is to re
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:01:38PM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Seconded
That wasn't signed.
Kurt
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I'd like submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and cross-distribution
> cooperation
So I counted enough seconds and it's on the website now.
Kurt
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:17:58PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:16:10PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Proposal: Focus on systemd to promote standardization and
> > cross-distribution cooperation
>
> Seconded.
The message was nog signed.
Kurt
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:44:08AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:12:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
> > C. The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
> > if there are any pr
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 08:43:38PM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Seconded.
Your message wasn't signed.
Kurt
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 03:47:40PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> First, if it does not reset the minimum discussion period, I'd like to
> withdraw proposal C.
I don't think that withdrawing an option changes the minimum
discussion period.
In A.2 it says:
4. The minimum discussion period is c
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 06:46:27PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> I'm thus proposing the following:
That is now on the website.
Kurt
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:15:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> Anyway, I'm not sure what the "I'd like" means. Is that just
> Kurt> an intention to do it, or did you do it?
&g
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:34:09PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> Kurt> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:15:25PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
&
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 11:48:42AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV
> Timing"):
> > The reason I didn't reorder it yet, is because it's talked about
> > like that. But I guess I can just reord
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
>
> Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
>
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 U
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:46:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> >
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:09:26AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> The minimum discussion period lapsed sometime Saturday.
> So, as one of the authors of a proposal, I ask the secretary to please
> prepare a ballot and start the vote.
> As the DPL, I ask the secretary to extend the voting period by
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:24:36PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Gerardo Ballabio writes:
>
> > Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> > before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> > and will agree to whatever formal step is required t
Hi,
Do you think it's useful to also have the text of all the options
in the ballot?
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This vote
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
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
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> > > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> > > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in fin
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> > could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> > start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to inter
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 Import
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> * c&p the HTML from proposal D
> * Adding the new title
> * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c&p the text
> from G, and numbering the paragraphs as clauses
> * Renumberin
Hi,
Here is a new draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the cons
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new draft ballot:
Here is a new one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems an
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:48:48PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Seconded.
That's 5, I'll update everything.
Kurt
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is a new draft ballot:
>
> Here is a new one:
And even a newer one:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:0
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:50:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> That's 5, I'll update everything.
The website should be updated very soon.
Kurt
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:56:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that GR has a stats/graph page like this:
> * https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/ (ongoing)
> * https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/suppl_001_stats (finished)
>
> This includes a graph over ballots rec
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 08:26:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:56:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It seems that GR has a stats/graph page like this:
> >> * https://vote.debian.org/~secr
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 04:44:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> Thanks, that would be great. :)
> >
> > So I've done it for the current vote, it's on the website now.
> >
> >
> > Kurt
> >
I'n proposing the following vote timeline:
Nomination period: Sunday 2019-03-08 - Saturday 2019-03-14
Campaigning period: Sunday 2019-03-15 - Saturday 2019-04-04
Voting period: Sunday 2019-04-05 - Saturday 2019-04-18
The new term will start on 2019-04-21
Kurt
So with the year corrected:
Nomination period: Sunday 2020-03-08 - Saturday 2020-03-14
Campaigning period: Sunday 2020-03-15 - Saturday 2020-04-04
Voting period: Sunday 2020-04-05 - Saturday 2020-04-18
The new term will start on 2020-04-21
Kurt
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 08:54:16AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I'm concerned that by sending my longish message about why I am not
> running, I may have started a trend that I do not value.
> Typically the nomination messages are fairly short.
> I appreciate Jonathan's thoughtful message, but yo
Hi,
This is the draft ballot.
Voting period starts 2020-04-05 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2020-04-18 23:59:59 UTC
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 04:06:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:18:16PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
> Roeckx wrote:
> >...
> > The details of the results are available at:
> > https://vote.debian.org/2020/vote_001
> >...
>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:18:16PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
> Roeckx wrote:
> > Stats for the DPL votes:
> > |--+--++---++-++---|
> > |
I'm proposing the following vote timeline:
Nomination period: Sunday 2021-03-07 - Saturday 2021-03-13
Campaigning period: Sunday 2021-03-14 - Saturday 2021-04-03
Voting period: Sunday 2021-04-04 - Saturday 2021-04-17
The new term will start on 2021-04-21
Kurt
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:13:28PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body
> > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> > is
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:37:26PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Seconded
I get a:
*BAD* signature from: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
aka: Sylvestre Ledru
a
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:19:19PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> D'oh!
>
> Due to cascading failures, I had to clearsign to get around some GMail
> issues I've been having. It looks to have line wrapped me, I've attached
> the content from above.
>
> Additionally, my key expired, I've push
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:48:39AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > Seeking seconds:
> >
> > ===BEGIN
> >
> > Replace the entire text with:
> >
> > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> > following statement:
> >
> > The Debian Project echoes and supports recent cal
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:45:57PM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
>
>
> Dear fellow DDs,
>
> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
I'm getting a BAD signature on this and some other mails from you,
and a Good one on others.
Kurt
I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails.
Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that
there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the
changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of
a new option and need to look f
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
> > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
I've changed that to "belatedly".
Kurt
1 - 100 of 570 matches
Mail list logo
