>
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violat
Brian May dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:45:47AM +1100]:
> > (...)
> >A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> >which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> >issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
> >
> >B) If we
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I was just thinking of postposing the end-of-vote cron job, so
> no re-voting would be needed.
>
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:12PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
> canceled.
>
> My suggestion is to do a very simple vote first, with only two choices:
>
> a) continue with the release process and don't wait for further GRs
>
>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to
> the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet
> Debian.
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
cance
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots su
Hi
Dne Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:47 +1100
Brian May napsal(a):
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If we do all this, we would be voting:
> >
> > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> > issues o
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
> current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
> restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I
> do not think the secretary has the
On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May
wrote:
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If we do all this, we would be voting:
> >
> > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> > issues or what h
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to allo
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I do not
> think the secretary
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> > Thomas Weber writes:
>> >> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>> >
>> >>> I've been talking with Manoj a
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Thomas Weber writes:
> >> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> >
> >>> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
> >>> flaming. I
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Weber writes:
>> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>
>>> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
>>> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
>>> problems with i
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
>> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
>>
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> --
>> Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
>> == == = = == ==
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
>> Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the
>> *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one.
>> (I may have just missed it.)
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
>> > Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
>> > vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
>> > j
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:52:55 Romain Beauxis, vous avez écrit :
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no?
>
> I don't read "shorten" in this link, only "start".
Woops, sorry I misread "discussion" with "vote".
The problem with this quote is that it was used to just
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit :
> > Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other*
> > vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have
> > just missed it.)
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg0
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]:
> Thomas Weber writes:
> > Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> >> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
> >> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
> >> pro
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adeodato Simó writes:
>
> > What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
> > appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
> > between them?
>
> I believe this only applies in the cont
Adeodato Simó writes:
> What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
> appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
> between them?
I believe this only applies in the context of 7.2 (replacing the
secretary). This was discussed some on debian-vot
Thomas Weber writes:
> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
>> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
>> problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm *rea
Neil McGovern schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:50:46PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:34 +0200]:
> But your interpretation is certainly possible. Of course, that just means
> it's up to the Secretary to rule which (if either) is correct :)
Brilliant.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debi
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:50:46PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> >> Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
> >> if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debia
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the
> numerous problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm
> *really* not happy with that,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> > Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary
> > cannot
> > be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
>
> Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:59:01PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
> appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
> between them?
I read it as a reference to the second paragraph of Section 7.2. Notice the
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho writes:
> Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary cannot
> be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
course amend the Constitution at the same time to allow this, so it
needs to
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:29 +0200]:
> The only constitutional way to get rid of the Secretary without his consent is
> for the DPL to fail to reappoint him, which would automatically mean (since
> I'm
> assuming that the Secretary does not go willingly) that a replacement
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Is there someone on the plane here to do what's needed with the
> secretary? If the DPL isn't willing to take any action here (and I'm
> really annoyed that despite repeated questions about it he never showed
> up in the discussion[
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>> > > Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
>> >
>> > Yeah Boycotting is silly, th
[Loïc Minier]
> [ MFU debian-vote@ ]
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> [ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
>
> I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
This choice is actually about delaying Lenny, and not so much about
reaffirming the social contract.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > > Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
> >
> > Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my
> > "preferred" choices second, th
Thomas Weber (15/12/2008):
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html
Let's quote for people following at home:
| >So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would
| > prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on November
| > 23th, or, if the
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 00:31 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >Debian Project Secretary (13/12/2008):
> >>
> >>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
> >>= === = === === = ===
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:56:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I read it as stating that we assume firmwares to be under a DFSG compliant
> license that does not violate the GPL when linked into the kernel. The
> kernel is GPL and the firmwares may be under a variety of licenses that do
> not v
- "Ean Schuessler" wrote:
> I know that some are fixated on the fact that firmware runs on "some
> other CPU" but I don't buy that line of reasoning. If this firmware
> business passes then I am going to start hunting down some MAME ROMs
> that have lapsed into the public domain. Those ROMs,
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> The title of ballot option 5 is a complete fabrication on the part of the
> Secretary that has nothing to do with its text. If option 5 had actually
> said what the title claims it says, then a different supermajority
> requirement might be in order, but that's no
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
> quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
> requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
> determined by t
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Debian Project Secretary (13/12/2008):
>>
>>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
>>= === = === === = === === ==
>>
>> Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sund
Le Sunday 14 December 2008 21:19:35 Andreas Barth, vous avez écrit :
> > FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means
> > that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of
> > lenny proceeds.
>
> Though I agree with that, voting for option 4 is even mor
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
>
> Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my
> "preferred" choices second, the rest third.
So in effect you prefer the options that do not require superm
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:14:34PM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit
> > wrote:
> > > This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> > > or to boycott it. This
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:43:24PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
> > quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
> > requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
> >
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
> quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
> requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
> determined by the secretary, will not ma
Debian Project Secretary (13/12/2008):
>
>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
>= === = === === = === === ==
>
> Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on S
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> [ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
> [ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG vi
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> > or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
>
> Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
> and tittle of
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >> --
> >> Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
> > Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG issues resolved
before
Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
>> if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
>>
>> Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
> by the § about delegates in the constitution. "Delegates shall take
> decision they see fit". What should be [3:1] is to dis-empower them from
> having such
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
> if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
>
> Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> --
>> Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
>
> Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not "DFSG" ?
I believe this is because the GPL requires source code
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> --
> Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
> == == = = == === === =
Why on earth doe
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
Cheers,
Bastian
Debian Project Secretary schrieb:
[...]
--
Bastian Venthur
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, December 21st, 2008
This ballot is for a v
60 matches
Mail list logo
