Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you only take into account "non-technical" stuff, you may be right.
> But then it's the same type of problematic as with architectures and
> porters... should a minority hold back the progress of the majority ?
No. However, majorities do not always choose p
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > I think ignored minorities are just as entitled to [reasons] as
> > > ignored majorities. Number of believers doesn't help [...]
> >
> > That's right, but this problem wouldn
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > I think ignored minorities are just as entitled to [reasons] as
> > ignored majorities. Number of believers doesn't help [...]
>
> That's right, but this problem wouldn't get worse because we
> have introduced polls
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] By officializing, I only mean :
> > - let the DD know that they have the possibility to use "polls" [...]
> > - be able to use d-d-a for those polls
>
> As a DD, jvw could already use d-d-a for those polls. Maybe the
> first poll there could ask where t
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] I don't see what benefit you get if
> > you "officialize" the polls, rather than keep them informal.
>
> [...] By officializing, I only mean :
> - let the DD know that they have the possibility to use "polls" [...]
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] I also believe that the delegate will most of
> > the time make up their own opinions and won't blindly follow the majority
> > if they (belive they) have grounded objections.
>
> How does that differ from the current situation: relying on a
> delegate'
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] I also believe that the delegate will most of
> the time make up their own opinions and won't blindly follow the majority
> if they (belive they) have grounded objections.
How does that differ from the current situation: relying on a
delegate's good jud
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think making these official is a terrible idea because it
> would change an interesting experimental data-collection method
> into a tool for more summary mob-rule decisions by delegates,
> which have been the worst sort of decision IMO.
The constitution
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So, if you feel a particular post was inappropriate / out-of-line bring
> it to the attention of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest using a bug report if it's important enough
to track. This is mentioned as an alternative on
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintena
ke, 2006-02-22 kello 10:36 +0100, Alexis Sukrieh kirjoitti:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait :
> > Please take into account that the second part of my mail is only an idea,
> > that it's in no way perfect. I know it looks like public delation and so
> > on. I'm looking forward for ide
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Reply-to debian-project ]
reply-to, ignored since I feel this is important enough that both lists
should see this reponse.
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> In the light of recent events, those polls could be used to give a physical
> rea
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:03:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > [ Reply-to debian-project ]
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to
> > evaluate the popularity of random i
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> > > Those polls are not fully crafted GR so they are not as binding as a GR
> > > could be but they should give up a pretty good overview of the current
> > > opinion inside the
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Reply-to debian-project ]
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to
> evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame.
> Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why do people actually believe that telling everyone to ignore flames is a
> workable strategy? [...]
I don't. debian is not (should not be) a monoculture and
there's the danger of ignoring badly-worded non-flame/troll
posts, which is silly and intolerant. It's
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> My idea would be to officialize a "weekly consultation" of the developers
I think making these official is a terrible idea because it
would change an interesting experimental data-collection method
into a tool for more summary mob-rule decisions by deleg
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> > It's just an idea that I wanted to share because I believe that we need to
> > do
> > something to reduce the level of flames on our lists. I'm always open to
> > better ideas.
>
> I just wanted to express that such a system, no matter how
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:34:56AM +0100, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> > > And keeping those not
> > > bored with them making pseudo decisions (or DD's opinion) for the r
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait :
> > Please take into account that the second part of my mail is only an idea,
> > that it's in no way perfect. I know it looks like public delation and so
> > on. I'm looking forward for ideas to improve th
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> > And keeping those not
> > bored with them making pseudo decisions (or DD's opinion) for the rest.
>
> The second part of the proposal (social pressure) should not hinder the
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
> > Those polls are not fully crafted GR so they are not as binding as a GR
> > could be but they should give up a pretty good overview of the current
> > opinion inside the project (if each poll has been well prepared by its
> > proponent).
>
>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Reply-to debian-project ]
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to
> evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame.
> Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait :
> Please take into account that the second part of my mail is only an idea,
> that it's in no way perfect. I know it looks like public delation and so
> on. I'm looking forward for ideas to improve this proposal.
Hmmm, even if I'm sure Raphael wants t
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The result of the polls could eventually be used by the listmasters to
> take action if needed.
So "eventually" is not what I meant, but rather "possibly" (it's a
"faux-amis", a bad translation from french word "éventuellement").
Please take into acc
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:43:23AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> [ Reply-to debian-project ]
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to
> evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame.
> Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two
[ Reply-to debian-project ]
Hi everybody,
given the size of the project, it's very difficult for any of us to
evaluate the popularity of random ideas/opinions in a short time frame.
Jeroen (jvw) recently conducted two informal polls (vi-tiny vs elvis, and
maintainer field for ubuntu) and I liked
26 matches
Mail list logo
