are based, libraries,
> daemons, entire desktop environments, or other parts of the software
> stack.
> X<
Seconded.
Cheers
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
pgpppRCShTFTa.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
e above into account, and discussing and evaluating
> each situation, and respecting and valuing that we all have different
> interests and motivations. That is in our general interest to try to
> work things out with others, to compromise, to reach solutions or find
> alternatives that m
idual is/shall be free to do so, we don't have
to debate this right at all or in a GR. Furthermore I would like to have the
wording restricted to the current document in question.
Could this be changed to something along the lines:
"""
Any individual (including Debian members)
peaker if the
wording is really capable of being misunderstood. Otherwise I just would let
go. But I second also the proposed version, preferable using then "as an
individual action".
Cheers
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
pgpBYwniN9yM3.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
*not* second such changed proposal.
>
> I took "in a personal capacity" from Gunnar.
>
> > Replacing "in question" with "on this subject" seems to me to not change
> > to meaning of the message. I would second a proposed text with that
>
* Steve Langasek: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project
itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:37:52 -0700):
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > > > Language quip: Not "invited
derstand, option E is not semantically identical to FD, but is
> equivalent in the way that it means "do nothing project-wide, either
> for or against".
I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
vote explicitely that nothing should be done on behalf
* Sam Hartman: " What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:57:28 -0400):
> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> Mathias> I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD
> Mathias> means/meant "preserve s
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 2 Apr 2021 23:29:58
+0200):
> > So, yeah, FD is complicated:-)
>
> I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> with FD. It'd probably help.
+1
--
Mathias Behrle ✧
* Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):
> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
> >> B FD, FD probably does map
* Russ Allbery: " Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
readmission to the FSF board»" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:49:21 -0700):
> Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> > I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
> > vote e
her time extensions. Developers who have previously
>proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the
>number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders,
>including seconders who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
>extension will not be a
elopers who have previously
> >proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the
> >number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders,
> >including seconders who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
> >extension will not be act
public, but developers will be given an option to confirm
> their vote is included in the votes+} cast.
>
> @@ -371,8 +390,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
> necessary.
>
> The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> Developers may cast
>> (following the new GR flow), I sponsor this.
> >
> > yes, that's what I ment, thanks. Do I need to resent my mail now with this
> > change? :)
>
> I sponsor this.
>
> While I may not end up voting for it as my first option, I think it
>
etary. However most of the developers that seconded the first
> ballot of GR 2021_002 were experienced developers that would be have been
> able to heed the recommendation given in this GR.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
FTR I am sponsoring this. Whatever Bill and Holger decide about their si
lly-free images will not be
> hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with
> less visual priority.
>
> =
Seconded. Thanks!
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
pgpkBo0HqgHUk.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
.
Hopefully I have nevertheless "well-maintained Debian git source trees" for the
Tryton suite... ;)
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
lt in a lot of frustration on the 'loosing' side.
Please lets preserve the good energy and hard brain work invested in this thread
so far, it is too precious to lose.
Thanks
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
e disclosed.
>
> === END GR TEXT ===
Seconded.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
pgpxjlMzUuoUU.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
96
[GNUPG:] KEY_CONSIDERED AC297E5C46B9D0B61C717681D6D09BE48405BBF6 0
[GNUPG:] KEYEXPIRED 1554624896
[GNUPG:] SIG_ID mwgOoKbGDJEFQ223bQPUVlc417w 2019-04-09 1554795539
[GNUPG:] KEYEXPIRED 1554624896
[GNUPG:] KEY_CONSIDERED AC297E5C46B9D0B61C717681D6D09BE48405BBF6 0
[GNUPG:] EXPKEYSIG D6D09BE48405BBF6 Mathias
* Joerg Jaspert: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader election
2019: First call for votes)" (Tue, 09 Apr 2019 12:12:10 +0200):
Hi Joerg,
thanks for your answer.
> On 15367 March 1977, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> > - originally set to 2019-04-07
> >
* Mattia Rizzolo: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader
election 2019: First call for votes)" (Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:16:43 +0200):
Hi Mattia,
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:12:10PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 15367 March 1977, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> &
y said in my answer to Joerg I will try to find a way with
KeyringMaint and/or Secretary to get a solution.
Cheers
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
* Joerg Jaspert: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader election
2019: First call for votes)" (Tue, 09 Apr 2019 16:44:43 +0200):
> On 15367 March 1977, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> >> *Usually* they do not do that during running elections, just short befor
* Roberto C. Sánchez: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader
election 2019: First call for votes)" (Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:03:43 -0400):
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:21:52PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > * Joerg Jaspert: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: R
tary. I will have at least the following
> rules for such vote casts:
> - The vote needs to be cast during the voting period.
> - You should have a good reason why the normal procedure doesn't
> work for you
> - I need some way to authenticate you
Well noted, this will be k
his is your fault. I found this
> aspect of things quite unintuitive myself.)
Thanks for the further aspects to keep in mind. As for me I *was* too late in
resetting the expiry. Shit happens. I don't think that will happen again;)
Cheers
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle ✧ Debi
break vote processing for
> others.
Looking forward to the response of Secretary and thanks for the explanations!
Mathias
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
pgpZJvrGmjmvV.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
* Adriano Rafael Gomes: " Re: Failing GPG key (was: Re: Debian Project Leader
election 2019: First call for votes)" (Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:44:26 -0300):
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I have set up an expiry on
30 matches
Mail list logo
