Re: Opposing strict time limits
Russ Allbery wrote: > I also think this system makes the voting process more open to procedural manipulation than my proposal (although this is more a gut feeling than anything concrete, and it's arguable), and essentially forecloses the project's ability to take any timely action without essentially unanimous consensus, so I would still favor my proposal. What about this. - any developer may request an extension of one week - the request is granted if L>=K developers second it - but it is denied if M>=L developers oppose it - if the DPL seconds or opposes the request, that counts as K votes (this means that the DPL can get an extension alone if nobody opposes, but can't force an extension if enough developers oppose) - the extension must be requested at least 48 hours before the end of the current discussion period, in order to give opposers enough time to speak out - that can be repeated any number of times, or no more than a fixed number of times, say three Gerardo
Re: Opposing strict time limits
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes: Russ> This analysis is very sensitive to the percentage of people in Russ> the minority who would be willing to delay the vote. I think Russ> a more likely number (probably still too high) would be at Russ> most 10% of the voters (a quarter of those in the minority), Russ> which would allow 7 delays, or 21 days (3 weeks), for a Russ> maximum discussion period of six weeks. I did less math, but my intuition was the same. My intuition was that you could probably get six weeks of delay for a GR that some minority really didn't like. Beyond that, I guess the political back pressure would be strong enough to git rid of the delay mechanism after the triggering GR was dealt with. I don't think adding a maximum matters to me much because I think that the practical maximum is somewhere between 6-9 weeks. I definitely prefer Russ's proposal. One concrete change I'd request would be language added that said what the delays should be used for. Something like "Delays should only be used to provide time to develop additional ballot options and not to delay the vote on a GR that those seeking a delay find objectionable." Such language, particularly if phrased with should language, has no normative effect based on how the constitution defines should. However, I think it might have behavioral effects in terms of setting community expectations. For example I could ask someone what ballot option they were working on if they proposed a delay. And if it was clear that they were not, our normal mechanisms for approaching behavior inconsistent with our norms could be applied. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General Resolution. Since the murder of George Floyd, the average fate of Black lives has received much attention. Even the tech sector picked up the "master/slave" topic over a year ago. [2][3][4] There should be little controversy. With a high pass rate, we could all come together as a group—for our shared love of Debian and free software! What do you think about the text below, please? Thanks for reading! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd [2] https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave/ [3] https://www.cnet.com/news/master-and-slave-tech-terms-face-scrutiny-amid-anti-racism-efforts/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/technology/racist-computer-engineering-terms-ietf.html * * * PROPOSED TEXT In recognizance of the awful history of slavery, the Debian project will rename the "FTP Masters" team. For a long time, the word "master" has been associated with the grave injustices of slavery. [1] While there is a tradition in computing to label primary equipment as a "master" and replicated equipment as "slaves" [2] the use of the word "masters" for a group of people with special privileges [3] shocks the conscience. Within that context, the team's use of the title "wizard" [4] was also problematic. The Ku Klux Klan and its spinoffs used the title "wizard" to style high officials. [5] The team will likewise discontinue the use of the term "wizard" to designate any current or former members. Nothing in this resolution shall impair the continued use of the "master/slave" analogy for technical equipment. "Without a struggle, there can be no progress." (Frederick Douglass) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) [3] "The FTP masters can do everything in the archive.", https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/FTPMaster [4] "The FTP Wizard role consists of former team members", https://ftp-master.debian.org/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Wizard
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
On November 3, 2021 9:27:08 PM UTC, Felix Lechner wrote: >Hi, > >I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General Resolution. > >Since the murder of George Floyd, the average fate of Black lives has >received much attention. Even the tech sector picked up the >"master/slave" topic over a year ago. [2][3][4] > >There should be little controversy. With a high pass rate, we could >all come together as a group—for our shared love of Debian and free >software! > >What do you think about the text below, please? Thanks for reading! > >Kind regards >Felix Lechner > >[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd >[2] https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave/ >[3] >https://www.cnet.com/news/master-and-slave-tech-terms-face-scrutiny-amid-anti-racism-efforts/ >[4] >https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/technology/racist-computer-engineering-terms-ietf.html > >* * * > >PROPOSED TEXT > >In recognizance of the awful history of slavery, the Debian project >will rename the "FTP Masters" team. For a long time, the word "master" >has been associated with the grave injustices of slavery. [1] > >While there is a tradition in computing to label primary equipment as >a "master" and replicated equipment as "slaves" [2] the use of the >word "masters" for a group of people with special privileges [3] >shocks the conscience. > >Within that context, the team's use of the title "wizard" [4] was also >problematic. The Ku Klux Klan and its spinoffs used the title "wizard" >to style high officials. [5] The team will likewise discontinue the >use of the term "wizard" to designate any current or former members. > >Nothing in this resolution shall impair the continued use of the >"master/slave" analogy for technical equipment. > >"Without a struggle, there can be no progress." (Frederick Douglass) > >[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery >[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) >[3] "The FTP masters can do everything in the archive.", >https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/FTPMaster >[4] "The FTP Wizard role consists of former team members", >https://ftp-master.debian.org/ >[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Wizard > I'd suggest if you want to change the name via GR, the text of the GR should give the new name. Otherwise, it could drag on for a very long time. Regardless of how one might feel about changing the names, it should be done quickly if it's to be done. Scott K
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
I feel like this is something the DPL should just decide together with the FTP dudes. No GR required, that's just bait. -- .''`. martin f. krafft @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "let me take you down, 'cause i'm going to strawberry fields. nothing is real and nothing to get hungabout. strawberry fields forever." -- the beatles
