Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] disambiguation of 4.1.5
I thought I'd respond to some of this.... just as a way of clarifying my
thinking...
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
>
> > * This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but
> > according to <http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal>, the current
> > Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent
> > to any list other than debian-project.
First, I'm sure you mean "any list other than debian-vote" since that's the
list we're talking about. I do this so that the developers don't have to
subscribe to EVERY list looking for proposals and discussions and sponsors
and such. For example, I am not subscribed to -project so I have never seen
the proposal originally made there.
> > * I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not
> > accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the
> > original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as
> > having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project
> > Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them,
> > I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In
> > the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying
> > them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to
> > the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to
> > subscribe to debian-vote.
This, again, is mostly a time-saving issue. The one time I can think of
where I was having problems, mutt wasn't verifying the signatures properly
for me. As a matter of proceedure, I'd rather not have to jump through
hoops to verify every signature. Especially since, as time goes on, more
and more of this is getting scripted. And that, scripted, is really the key
reason.
> > * Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava
> > in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however,
> > should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did
> > not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his
> > proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other
> > words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's
> > position or opinions.
As this progresses, I would like to talk to you two...
Reply to: