On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > Much noise has been made by certain proponents of the earlier GR over > the fact that there are three very similar options on the ballot. They > have suggested that this means the sponsors of these ballot options > don't have their act together, and are incapable of agreeing on > anything. > > It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing > sarge soon that we have proposed so many paths to reaching this goal. > This is an effort to build consensus, not a lack of consensus on our > part.
I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options which are *not* present indicates that the proposals weren't very carefully planned out). I can see a whole range of ways in which options 1-3 could have been better written. I'm not even sure where to start with 5. If any of these win then we'll probably end up in a spiralling sequence of votes for the rest of the year, gradually working out bugs in them. Of these, option 3 is the one which will probably result in the *least* further edits. The reason why we got into this state is because "releasing sarge" appears to be the sole priority - no matter how or what is released, it *must* be released soon, at the expense of all else. > This means that, if your objective in voting on this GR is also to undo > the damage that has been done to our release process, you should > consider voting *multiple* options above "Further Discussion", not just > one. (I was trying to refrain from the obligatory lecture on "How to vote in a Condorcet system"; it gets *really* old. You sort the options according to precise personal pairwise preferences; everything else is either equivalent to this, or will backfire) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
