On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:42:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> > days before the actual election.
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
And? You are aware there are
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01914.html
> This does not say you are a hypocrite. In this message, Nathanael
> Nerode says you convinced him "o
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> >
> >> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> >> days before the actual election.
> >
> > Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
>
> In the US, campaig
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:59:48 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In that case I wonder why no rebuttals were posted and why the IRC
> debate was called off, if obviously there is more need for
> information and discussion.
I see where the problem lies. You think we are the B
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:13:41 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:59:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:51 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling place on
election d
Anthony Towns writes:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been calle
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been called
Anthony Towns writes:
> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:59:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:51 +1000, Anthony Towns
> said:
Oh, one thing I forgot in Bdale's term was the migration to postfix from
qmail for lists.debian.org.
> > Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would place a much higher premium on
> the ability to change ones mind given fresh information, rather than
> having my vote be writ in stone. If there is new information that
> would change my mind
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:56:15AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> One of the things Bruce did (before my time, I think) was ban people from
> the lists, or convert them to "daily digest mode" for not acting with
> an appropriate amount of decorum. I can't imagine a DPL getting away
> with trying
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> >> days before the actual election.
> >
> > Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
>
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this deba
Anthony Towns wrote:
> No, a leader's not a dictator. Let's delve into this some more: I spent
> a fair bit of time advocating what I thought was the appropriate course
> of action on non-free. I prepared a resolution, and it even won the day.
> For my involvement in this debate, I've been called
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:59:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:51 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Oh, one thing I forgot in Bdale's term was the migration to postfix from
qmail for lists.debian.org.
> > Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was u
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:38:52PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> I wonder why Debian seems worse off than other
> project in this regard though? I don't see this much acrimony in
> other more or less important free software groups I'm involved with.
I think the difference is that Debian doesn't
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would place a much higher premium on
> the ability to change ones mind given fresh information, rather than
> having my vote be writ in stone. If there is new information that
> would change my mind
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:56:15AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> One of the things Bruce did (before my time, I think) was ban people from
> the lists, or convert them to "daily digest mode" for not acting with
> an appropriate amount of decorum. I can't imagine a DPL getting away
> with trying
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:38:52PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> I wonder why Debian seems worse off than other
> project in this regard though? I don't see this much acrimony in
> other more or less important free software groups I'm involved with.
I think the difference is that Debian doesn't
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:29:47PM -0800, mbc wrote:
> No, formal consensus usually has the following steps:
>
> - broad discussion of the issue at hand
> - once the discussion moves toward a solution, someone makes a proposal
> - the facilitator calls for consensus, and asks for questions and con
No, formal consensus usually has the following steps:
- broad discussion of the issue at hand
- once the discussion moves toward a solution, someone makes a proposal
- the facilitator calls for consensus, and asks for questions and concerns
- if there are strong concerns, the proposal goes back t
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:29:47PM -0800, mbc wrote:
> No, formal consensus usually has the following steps:
>
> - broad discussion of the issue at hand
> - once the discussion moves toward a solution, someone makes a proposal
> - the facilitator calls for consensus, and asks for questions and con
No, formal consensus usually has the following steps:
- broad discussion of the issue at hand
- once the discussion moves toward a solution, someone makes a proposal
- the facilitator calls for consensus, and asks for questions and concerns
- if there are strong concerns, the proposal goes back to
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > > incomplete information,
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to be dismissed.
>
> In th
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to b
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> > to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
> > A long v
On 23 Mar 2004 09:51:39 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a matter of opinion. I find the beats table as originally
>> depicted far cleaner -- and easier to read -- than the more verbose
>> format you prescribe.
> It t
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
> A long voting period withought campaigning allows for people to read
> over the materi
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:14:11 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
>> period is a good thing?
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have t
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > > incomplete information,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a matter of opinion. I find the beats table as
> originally depicted far cleaner -- and easier to read -- than the
> more verbose format you prescribe.
It took me a lot of substraction to figure out whether it was "row
beats column" o
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
> day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that would
> lead to a change in their opinion.
But wait, if there is some piece of information out there that could
ch
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
So they can stop reading.
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A diverse group is one where the members don't share a common vision
> and perceptual apparatus.
What is a "perceptual apparatus"? The only thing that comes to mind
are my sense organs, and telescopes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Now that the disposition of the non-free sections has been
decided upon, it is time to move on to the editorial changes proposed
by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I mean to have the formal discussion period start this Sun
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to be dismissed.
>
> In th
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to b
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:13:47PM +0200, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > >Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
> > > Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
> > > canvassing and finding out everyones posit
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:56:13AM -0800, mbc wrote:
> Preface: I'm honestly hoping that this email wil spur some constructive
> discussion...
This subject is off-topic for debian-policy, which deals (almost)
exclusively with technical policy, not organizational processes.
debian-project is the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> period is a good thing?
Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that woul
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:34:45 -0500
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> > rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> > new
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> > to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
> > A long v
On 23 Mar 2004 09:51:39 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is a matter of opinion. I find the beats table as originally
>> depicted far cleaner -- and easier to read -- than the more verbose
>> format you prescribe.
> It t
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
> A long voting period withought campaigning allows for people to read
> over the materi
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:14:11 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
>> period is a good thing?
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have t
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:36:46AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
>
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> new material :) I think a three-week voting period is sensible as it
> allows people
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:51 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough that
> Bruce decided to leave two or three times.
Hmm. You make it sound like the lack of people willing to give
up heir ideas of right and wrong to be herded like
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a matter of opinion. I find the beats table as
> originally depicted far cleaner -- and easier to read -- than the
> more verbose format you prescribe.
It took me a lot of substraction to figure out whether it was "row
beats column" o
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
> day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that would
> lead to a change in their opinion.
But wait, if there is some piece of information out there that could
ch
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
So they can stop reading.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A diverse group is one where the members don't share a common vision
> and perceptual apparatus.
What is a "perceptual apparatus"? The only thing that comes to mind
are my sense organs, and telescopes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Now that the disposition of the non-free sections has been
decided upon, it is time to move on to the editorial changes proposed
by Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I mean to have the formal discussion period start this Sun
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
* Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 14:14]:
> OK, I admit I am late. I wanted to ask this some days ago, but
> apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
> started. If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate to
> answer this question after the voting period
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:13:47PM +0200, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > >Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
> > > Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
> > > canvassing and finding out everyones posit
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:56:13AM -0800, mbc wrote:
> Preface: I'm honestly hoping that this email wil spur some constructive
> discussion...
This subject is off-topic for debian-policy, which deals (almost)
exclusively with technical policy, not organizational processes.
debian-project is the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> period is a good thing?
Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that woul
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:34:45 -0500
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> > rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> > new
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:36:46AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
>
Anthony Towns writes:
> Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough that
> Bruce decided to leave two or three times. That other people don't
> want to put up with that degree of unpleasantness and choose to
> "coordinate" instead of "lead" shouldn't be particularly surprising
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> new material :) I think a three-week voting period is sensible as it
> allows people
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:51 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough that
> Bruce decided to leave two or three times.
Hmm. You make it sound like the lack of people willing to give
up heir ideas of right and wrong
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
>> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
>> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
>> recently. While I can perfectly understand the mot
* Mario Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-22 14:14]:
> OK, I admit I am late. I wanted to ask this some days ago, but
> apparently forgot about it, and now, the voting period already
> started. If you feel for some reason that it is inappropriate to
> answer this question after the voting period
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it is. And Debian's response to that was unpleasant enough that
> Bruce decided to leave two or three times. That other people don't
> want to put up with that degree of unpleasantness and choose to
> "coordinate" instead of "lead" shouldn't be part
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
> > Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
> > canvassing and finding out everyones position on a matter.
> Yeah, and eventually asking everyone "can we agree on th
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote:
>> I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian
>> into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections
>> recently. While I can perfectly understand the mot
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
> > Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
> > canvassing and finding out everyones position on a matter.
> Yeah, and eventually asking everyone "can we agree on th
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:11:35AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:12:36AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote:
> >>I think that consensus is a more democratic method of decision making.
> >Ah, consensus doesn't require v
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:12:36AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote:
I think that consensus is a more democratic method of decision making.
Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:43:00PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Frankly, the most exciting development in Debian I've seen lately
> > > is Bruce Perens' UserLinux, [...]
> > For example, as well as the many things Bruce came up with that
> > worked out, he also propo
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:11:35AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:12:36AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote:
> >>I think that consensus is a more democratic method of decision making.
> >Ah, consensus doesn't require v
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:12:36AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote:
I think that consensus is a more democratic method of decision making.
Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
canva
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:43:00PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Frankly, the most exciting development in Debian I've seen lately
> > > is Bruce Perens' UserLinux, [...]
> > For example, as well as the many things Bruce came up with that
> > worked
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:52PM -0800, mbc wrote:
> I think that consensus is a more democratic method of decision making.
Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
Cool.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fort
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:53:21 -0500, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'd just like to comment that I find the output of the below list
> hard to read, and I'm one of the folks who helped recommend our
> current voting procedure.
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
82 matches
Mail list logo
