On Sun, 04 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Because not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong)
> opinions on which are more and which are less desirable is still a
> valid position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.
It's fine to rank options you prefer further discussion to, becau
Chris Waters writes:
> So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
> further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
> magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
> still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
> o
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> > I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> > can't accept compromise.
> I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
> to mean.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:55:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
> > either
> > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
> > statements are not binding; over
- "Matthew Johnson" wrote:
> Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
> clarify all this)
So how about that "release Lenny with DFSG violations" GR that needs to pass
with 3:1? I bet if it is clear cut that it will pass easily.
After that we can move on to
On Sun Jan 04 15:55, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
> > either
> > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
> > statements are not binding; overrides of delegates ca
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the op
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
> a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
> statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override
> decisions that have actually been tak
Chris Waters writes:
> And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
> afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an
> option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just
> stupid.
Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's suggestion was a
*
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
10 matches
Mail list logo
