On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
> buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
> users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
> and potentially usi
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> I'm not ashamed at all; I joine
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> >
>
> I'm not ashamed at all; I
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
> options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
> is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
> should be assigned.
> I can only
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
> the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the
> options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest,
> safest and most easily justified seems to be "stop discus
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
>
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:33AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> > the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> > release...
> If you
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
> release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the
> > other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> > requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of
> > any oth
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:45:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
> the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of
> the options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the
> simplest, safest and most
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> > of the other options on
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> requirements were s
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
> amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
> independently, that could look something like this below:
>
> ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a g
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
> and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
> by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to si
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
>
> considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the best
> way to just "undo" this GR and go back to square one instead?
It seems to me the s
Hi,
On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
> for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
>
> Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the problems around this p
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
> [ difference between options 2 and 5]
> It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
> furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where n
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
> option x received over option y.
> Option
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> === === === ===
* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
> Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
> (0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) < 1
> Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
> (1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) < 3
> Dropping O
19 matches
Mail list logo
