On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:34:42PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> Dear Debian Developers,
>
> since the minimum discussion period is now over and since no amendments
> have been proposed, I'm hereby calling for a vote.
>
> TEXT TO BE VOTED STARTS HERE
>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 07:26:33PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 16/05/2012 00:28, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > I'll start the vote during the weekend. But I need to think about
> > the name of the option, I wasn't very happy with it when I wrote
> > that.
>
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Rejected amendments, i.e. those
> that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
> period.
I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted
(have enough seconds), but I would need to re-re
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those
> > > that result in additiona
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:10:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL election.
Thanks, received and is a valid nomination.
Kurt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 06:36:14PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2013, at 17:29, Moray Allan wrote:
>
> > The campaign period already finished a few days ago
> Yes, I was aware of that when I posted, but RL interfered with me asking
> prior to voting opening. I sought advice as to wh
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> 2 defecting B voters have stolen the election from 99 co-operative A voters.
>
>
>
> Here's another example in which the 3 factions are nearly equal in size:
>
> Sincere preferences:
>
> 33: A>B>
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:10:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Ossipoff writes ("Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but
> Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian"):
> > Example 1:
> >
> > Sincere preferences:
> >
> > 99: A>B>>C
> > 2: B>A>>C
> > 100: C>>(A=B)
>
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> Below, I'll show examples of what can happen, but first I'll just
> verbally summarize what can happen: First of all, of course A is the
> CW. A is the "sincere CW". In comparison to each of the other
> candidates, more people p
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 04:40:37PM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > So my understanding of things is that for your first 2 examples,
> > voters for B being dishonest resulted in C winning
>
> In CSSD, as defined in the Debian Constitution (and as I define it
> too), but disregarding the default
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56:49AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Of course obviously, if Debian doesn't have a chicken dilemma, there's
> no need for Debian to change its voting system from CSSD to Schwartz
> Woodall.
I think we do theoretically have this problem, and maybe we should
change. B
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> > Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> >> I agree. I think that would be quite bad. We could explicitly state
> >> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacate
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote:
> There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
> Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
> §A.6.3 [2].
This also reminded me of
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:01PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds. I don't think further lengthy discussion of the issues is
> likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring this swiftly
> to a vote
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > written.
>
> Do you agree that the i
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Matthew Vernon writes ("Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> > for seconds. [...]
>
> Seconded.
This isn't counted since it's not signed.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> > > sys
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:06:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> This a GR proposal is a "position statement about issues of the day"
> (as it says in the "Notes and rubric".) It's on the subject of init
> systems. Therefore it is covered by this wording.
But it also says:
1. Exercise of the TC
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:45:39PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Matthew Vernon writes ("Proposal
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > This a GR proposal is a "position statemen
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:07:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Putting the "notes and rubric" sectio
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> >
> >The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
Hi,
It seems I should have started the DPL nomination period already
today if I want to keep the start and end dates in a weekend.
It should have been:
nomination: 2 march - 8 march
campainging: 9 march - 29 march
voting: 30 march - 13 april
So that we'd have a new DPL by the 17th of april.
So
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:31:42PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems I should have started the DPL nomination period already
> today if I want to keep the start and end dates in a weekend.
>
> It should have been:
> nomination: 2 march - 8 march
> campain
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:51:07PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > My message was, in the words of Constitution 4.2.5, an
> >announcement on a publicly-readable electronic mailing list
> >designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s)
> > (I assume that listmaste
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> >
> >The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:46:29PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I've previously said so in [1], this should not be a surprise:
> I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
You're too early.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:22:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:15:09PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > Logind requires systemd.
>
> This is false, and therefore the rest of the question is irrelevant.
I think the point of his question is to have an example that we
und
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:38:06AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let's try this again:
> I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
Ok
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:48:16AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the 2014 DPL election.
Ok
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://l
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:39:40AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> > This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
> > to propose a Debian code of conduct.
>
> I second this proposal.
I think that's the 4th second.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:25:16PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Wouter Verhelst writes ("GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> &g
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> > This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
> > to propose a Debian code of conduct.
>
> I second this proposal.
I actually got a BAD signature
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 07:09:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:08:10PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst writes ("GR proposal: code of conduct"):
> >
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
> to propose a Debian code of conduct.
So I've put up a vote page with my current understanding at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002
I'
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> ==
> 1. The Debian project decides to accept a code of conduct for
>participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels, and other modes of
>communication within the project.
So I've been wondering under which part of the co
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:41:10PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This is to propose a general resolut
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is to propose a general resolution under §4.1.5 of the constitution
> > to propose a Debian code of conduct.
>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:55:10PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I second Wouter's proposal and both of Neil's amendments below.
> (I haven't counted the current seconds for the amendments. The -vote
> page indicates there's not enough.)
This makes the fifth.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:28:00AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Wouter,
>
> On 8 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >>
> >> Amendment A - move mailing list CoC text to "further reading"
> > After some consideration,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [140308 02:21]:
> > > > So rather than accepting this amen
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:07:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:54:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:34:31PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > Formally accepted :)
> >
> > So I inserted that after 2, and it
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:18:10AM +0100, Olivier Berger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> (not subscribed to debian-vote, so please CC me, eventually).
>
> Sorry if I'm unaware of details of our constitutional corpus and
> procedures, but is there a way to track evolutions in a GR page like
> [0], if not subscri
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with
> campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly
> people can always change their minds if they like. I'm not sure it's
> worth the effort though.
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 02:23:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to call for votes on the code of conduct GR.
I'm going to start the vote next weekend, starting on the 13th.
The dpl vote and this vote will overlap for 1 days.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-re
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:02:20AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sonntag, 6. April 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I'm going to start the vote next weekend, starting on the 13th.
>
> does that mean there is still time to amend it?
No.
You already had 4 weeks s
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 09:37:57PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 02:23:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to call for votes on the code of conduct GR.
>
> I'm going to start the vote next weekend, starting on t
Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the
vote to some other place?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141016210738.ga21...
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0900, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
> Seconded.
This seems to be signed with a key that is not in the keyring.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archi
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal
>
> Recieved, and verified. Note, this has been proposed by the current
> Project Leader, and thus does not r
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
>
> For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
> policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
[...]
> 3. Notes and rubric
>
> This resolution is a Position
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 07:14:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init
> systems"):
> > I think those 2 conflict, and that if you want to use the TC
> > powers it would fall under 4.1.4.
>
> Kurt,
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:40:49AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:14:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > So let's just assume for now that I would come to the same conclusion.
>
> When do you think you'll do an authoritative assessment of th
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:46:19PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 14.14:58 Joey Hess a écrit :
> > The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and
> > decided:
> > > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to
> > > support the multiple
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the
> proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will
> seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are
> happy with.
Please s
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715
> > or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or
> > more of t
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice
> of init systems)"):
> > For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
> > further amendments. That means that the minimum discussion
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:59:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Calling for the vote (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve
> freedom of choice of init systems)"):
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:34:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > That was at `
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Neil, (CC'ing secretary@)
>
> Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 23.53:43 Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
> > for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by t
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> 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 t
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:01:40PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I can't find the reference right now, but IIRC we've discussed this
> > > during the init system coupling GR and I don't think it's possible: you
> > > are DPL, if you introduce an amendment, it's automatically accepted. I
>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:53:11PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:20:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between
> > dashed double lines, and calling for seconds.
>
> AFAICT the discussion period has
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> It would also be nice that already suggested what the wording of
> the options should be.
I really can't come up with good wordings on the difference, so
I'm probably going with "option 1" an
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:31:11PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 16/12/14 at 21:02 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > First draft:
> >
> > Looks quite good, but I'm unhappy about minor things.
> > I propose the following m
Hi,
This is the ballot as it is currently.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, November 18th, 2014
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 31th, 2014
The following ballot is for voting on limiting the term of the technical
committee members.
Thi
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, November 18th, 2014
So December, not November
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 09:55:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, [December] 18th,
> > 2014
> > Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Wed
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:56:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the ballot as it is currently.
Here is an updated ballot. Please note that the expiration date
of the key has been changed so if you already imported it you
might want to update it.
Voting peri
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 09:48:45AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> You should probably have included a
>
> Reply-To: gr_cttet...@vote.debian.org
>
> in the absence of that, people need to concentrate :-)
This is not the call for vote yet. That will include it.
Kurt
--
To UNSUB
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 08:07:02AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Oh, and to really enjoy the DPL campaign, we should try to get other
> things off our plate before it -- let's fix all RC bugs and release
> jessie by then?
The schedule is probably going to be:
28 feb: start nomination
7 mar: st
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 08:07:02AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and to really enjoy the DPL campaign, we should try to get other
> > things off our plate before it -- let's fix all RC bugs and
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:06:11PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
> Roeckx wrote:
> > | Nomination | Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 | Tuesday, Marc
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:34:01AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Here is the draft ballot:
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, April 14th, 2015
That should of course be:
Voting p
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:57:30AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx , 2015-04-01, 00:35:
> >>Here is the draft ballot:
> >>
> >>Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Monday, April 1st, 2015
> >>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 06:09:10AM +0200, Rémi Vanicat wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> > There are 4 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
> > 1 and 4. In the brackets n
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> You can see the `options' file I passed, below. I have not verified
> the Secretary's quorum calculation.
devotee did a quorum calculation, but i will need to recalculate
it since there are DDs that don't have a key in the keyring.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:26:27AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:12:14PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary -
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > Stats for the DPL votes:
> > |--+--++---++-++-
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41:52PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>
> Sadly this list is trivially proved inaccurate
So I have no source at all that is can tell me the number of DDs?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:28:34PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:45:37AM +0200]:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41:52PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > >
> > > Sadly this list is trivially proved inaccurate
> >
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:00:56AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> the answer is 986 at present.
So can you give me a list of those 986 so I can update the
website?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listma
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi together,
>
> we (as the Technical Committee) have encountered two bugs in the
> constitution which we like to fix. For this reason, I propose the following
> General Resolution to change the constitution.
So I see 5 seconds, so
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>(i) Delete most of A.6(3) (which implemented the supermajority
>by dropping options at an early stage). Specifically:
> - Move A.6(3)(1) (the definition of V(A,B)) to a new subparagraph
> A.6(3)(0) before A.6(3)(
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 31 August 2015 at 08:06, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A new GR has been started to update the Standard Resolution
> > Procedure. Details
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:30:38PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 15:18:36 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I second the below text, for both changes.
>
> FWIW, at least on my mail client I'm failing to verify this signature.
> Not that is *that* important
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:47:47AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > The solution to this problem is moving the majority check later
> > in the process, so that option B would have been dropped first.
> > If they did this stratigic voting in that
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:32:34PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150829 16:03]:
> > (Or I might be totally confused about the effects of all the
> > changes you're doing. Those are all non-obvious changes that seem
> > to change more than
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Kurt> The solution to this problem is moving the majority check
> Kurt> later in the process, so that option B would have been dropped
> Kurt> first. If they did this stratigic voting in that case both
> Kurt> options w
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
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 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>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:01:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150831 11:23]:
> > Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit :
>
> > > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice
> > > for the voter. In that case, th
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 th
Andreas,
Could you pretty please fix the GR text? I've been waiting for
this for 3 weeks now without any reply from you.
The main problem is:
- Move A.6(3)(1) (the definition of V(A,B)) to a new
subparagraph A.6(3)(0) before A.6(3)(1).
Where Ian indicated that "A.6(3)(0)" sh
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:06:42AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> sorry for answering so late, but I had a "great" combination of being
> sick and too much work.
>
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [150921 08:34]:
> > I would also really like to see
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> Hi.
> I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
> Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for seconds
> on the amendment I made to that resolution as its own resolution.
> Obviously I'm proposin
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:34:22PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> Seconded.
Please sign your message.
Kurt
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> Hi.
> I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution.
I would like to remind you that we're now in the 3rd week of the
discussion period.
Kurt
301 - 400 of 570 matches
Mail list logo
