On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:12:27PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> The current schedule of SPI elections for the Board is this:
> 2007: 6 seats
> 2008: 3 seats
> 2009: 0 seats
> 2010: 6 seats
Err, what? Isn't it:
2007: 6 seats (Bdale, Branden, David, Ian, Jimmy, Joey)
2008: 0 seats -
2009:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> We have a calendar correction to make.
>
> The current schedule of SPI elections for the Board is this:
>
> 2007: 6 seats
>
> 2008: 3 seats
>
> 2009: 0 seats
>
> 2010: 6 seats
>
> etc...
>
> I think you can see some problems with this skewed rotatio
All,
We have a calendar correction to make.
The current schedule of SPI elections for the Board is this:
2007: 6 seats
2008: 3 seats
2009: 0 seats
2010: 6 seats
etc...
I think you can see some problems with this skewed rotation, the product of
some missed/aborted elections in our past. I
MJ,
> SPI pledges to obey all OFTC decisions. Please do the same for the
> debian project.
Frankly, I wouldn't vote to approve the OFTC wording the way it stands if
they were applying to join today. It's too vague. However, since OFTC
actually needs very little, if anything, from SPI on a mo
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:01:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> (Confusing statements by the current DPL about his authoritativity
> don't help, although he's also promised to relate faithfully any
> non-DPL decisions, so that isn't critical ATM.)
I consider them different hats:
- the DPL gets to make
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue we're having with Debian is the requests by a couple of prominent
> (or at least vocal) Debian community members that we monitor, and react to,
> actions on debian-vote, as well as dealing with claims by Debian community
> members that the DPL w
AJ, Ian,
> > In the case of other projects where we've nominated an individual as
> > the `authoritative decisionmaker', that person was the leader of the
> > project.
>
> And, uh, the "authoritative decisionmaker" for Debian is the duly elected
> leader of the Debian project.
More to the point,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Then that's something for Debian to resolve, up to and including
> > appointing a new project representative.
>
> Err, boggle. Firstly, dealing with that that way in Debian might well
> be too slow. And secondly, the representative
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
> Project status"):
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:17:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I'm afraid that this fails to clarify precisely the situation that w
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
Project status"):
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:17:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm afraid that this fails to clarify precisely the situation that was
> > being disputed. What if the representative fails to honour so
10 matches
Mail list logo
