On Tue Oct 05 15:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is a very annoying workflow that makes things harder for voters.
> Can't we stop doing this? I'd much rather see the ballot sent exactly
> when the vote is open, so that people can simply reply to it immediately
> and vote. I'm sure I'm not the only
On Thu Sep 16 14:58, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I don't think we should open a second way to get upload rights to the
> > archive,
> > so I would *not* want to remove that part.
>
> So do you think that if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive”
> is
> not present, the GR will preven
id try quite hard, but it never got anywhere
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu Mar 25 18:37, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
> > happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
> > requirements to the
still a legitimate point here. What happens
when an amendment is proposed which has different majority requirements to the
others? What happens when the secretary and the proposer disagree about the
majority requirements?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ough the pain of a formal resolution.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
W I would read 4.1.5 along with the SC and DFSG to mean that 3:1 is
required when voting on something which if repeated ad-infinitum would
be equivalent to replacing the SC, DFSG and constitution but without
doing so because any other interpretation is absurd and makes the 3:1
pointless. I am completely aware that you and others disagree, and hence
the point of this vote so we can pick a position on it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
are agreeing to definitely do something which the
social contract said we would not, but we aren't permanently modifying
it".
Perhaps we need a vote option which says "these things definitely aren't
something we need 3:1 for, regardless of what you think they are"
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is
> > why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset.
>
> Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms
> instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS.
That would be great, unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a grey
area here, hence the problems.
Please do suggest better terms.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
think the most recent fiasco
> has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the
> first place.
Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea.
Do you want to draft that?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
is “obviously stupid” and what
> isn't. That's why we have decision-making systems.
Absolutely
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
quot;, 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1)
to pick some examples. These aren't in your list of "things which are
binding GRs", but I think t
assigned to them does not need to do it.
However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions
properly made under them."
This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
to do
es not
conflict with a foundation document at all, passing it by simple
majority is binding, whereas if it does conflict then it is not.
To put it another way, who decides whether to demand the author chose
between non-binding and 3:1, if they think it's not conflicting.
Matt
--
Matth
ar.
All I was trying to demonstrate was to provide an example of a vote
which is clearly contradictory to a foundation document, but did not
modify it.
Votes in practice will be closer to the line, of course.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> > > update or that the postition s
ans that we have to vote to change
the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ally my point of view is that 3 requires supermajority, 4 does
not and that 5 and 6 should be rejected by the secretary as invalid.
I hope that has explained things better and you can see where I'm coming
from,
Matt
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00091.html
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
dation Document (in which case
they require a 3:1 majority) or they must explicitly say that this
is an interpretation and they do not conflict. Any vote which
contains an ambiguous option will not be run until it is clarified"
This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/05/msg3.html
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
#x27;m going to try and push that discussion a bit more in a
couple of hours, so probably best to discuss in that context
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
think the secretary currently has that power under the
> Constitution.
>
(sorry to hijack the thread) this is exactly what I want to clarify in
the other thread over <- there about constitutional issues. And why
I was trying to get that in _first_
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s are references to sections in the constitution).
> ====
> PROPOSAL END
I second this proposal
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
27;m not intending to answer the question here of whether
we can release with blobs or dfsg violations, but what the vote about
this should look like.
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
;ve gone through the whole process
I'd like all that effort to have resulted in a solution everyone has to
follow...
Issuing nebulous position statements is what we elect a DPL for, isn't
it (-;
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the position before the vote?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
t do so. So that would be option 2 above.
Yeah, this is what I think too, but Manoj got a lot of flack about it,
hence why I want to make it explicit.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
>
> When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the f
ed by the time we are trying to release squeeze.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
them.
>
> So is Dato leading the discussion for these other options?
Anyone who wants to change them. I tried starting off that discussion,
but noone followed up. I'm not about to propose running a vote to keep
them as they are...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
> constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
> 'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
>
On Sun Mar 08 23:40, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> How about "Shepherds Bush (Central line)"?
>
How about accepting that "he" is the gender-neutral pronoun in English?
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
mustn't release with DFSG problems
I'm sure there are other related positions I've missed off too.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ey did vote for option 4, through the wonders of condorcet. more than
half the voters were happy with that option (or it would not have beaten
FD)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ces it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they
have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
t your chances at getting
people to agree with you later.
If the DPL wants to release a statement to explain this all he is
welcome (and encouraged) to do so, I don't think we need a GR though.
This is one of the DPL's main functions and we did elect him to perform
that function...
Matt
jority in favour of releasing Lenny
with DFSG violations (take that as you will).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to find, fairly short bit
of 'extra explanation' which is intentionally limited is size has a lot
of merit. It doesn't replace the -vote thread and everyone's opinions,
it's for people who don't have time to read that much, but do want to
have a bit more insight.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
otion that
> the Social Contract (our purpose and motivation) is less binding that
> the Constitution (how we get things done) seems nonsensical in the
> extreme.
Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
clarify all this)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
l continue arguing for what I think our foundation
documents mean (even if the vote goes against what I would prefer, if
the majority says that).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
able. I would like this to be on the
ballot so that everyone can put it below FD and make it clear that we
don't think this (or, alternatively, vote it in and then all the people
who thought we had a binding social contract can take a fork and work on
that)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> > include
On Fri Dec 19 14:00, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
> > On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
> >> across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Pla
; those decisions have no special protection or role in the constitution.
> Therefore, in a very real sense the DFSG and SC mean whatever a simple
> majority of developers decide that they mean in each specific case where a
> GR is applied.
Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e should
include SC/Constitution amendments to make them explicitly state that
position (and hence 3:1. I _really_ hope we can make 3:1 on this vote,
the project is in a sad state if we can't)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
which says "we don't care
whether or not it is source form". The former says "we keep the DFSG as
it is, but we are asserting that they comply unless we can prove
otherwise" and the latter says "even if we can prove otherwise we will
change the DFSG so that it
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > > document will look like i
On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > > document will look like if it's acc
l ship the binary NVidia
drivers in main and make them the default so that people can use compiz"
but doesn't say they are overriding the DFSG or provide the wdiff for it
then that's fine and only needs 1:1 to pass?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
you should leave the project is
completely untenable. It's a ridiculous suggestion and I am shocked that
anyone would entertain the thought.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> (or at least I) mightn't expect.
> ...
> Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
I'm not too surprised by this. I think it's entirely logically
con
uot;. Please tell me how
you can _possibly_ reconcile those two statements without modifying the
DFSG and therefore requiring a super majority.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ng to skew anything, I just
think that it makes the meaning of the choices slightly clearer. If
people read the text below then it is clear.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
And that if we release now, the glibc code which we ship will be free
shortly, without having to update stable, whereas the code shipped in
the kernel won't be free in Lenny, however long we wait (because the
solution is to remove/replace it)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
icense in a way that might violate the DFSG.
> It's certainly not an ideal situation, but on the spectrum of licensing
> issues that we might ignore it's not one that would keep me up at night.
>
Also, it's in the process of being resolved. There are (according to
another th
|
> | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks
> | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes
> | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id:
> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer Status".
Seconded
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
= 1. (this means that while a new DPL
wouldn't have to give up other roles, it would be good to recruit an
additional person to one of their posts, so that they can concentrate on
DPL duties). Things like TC, FTP masters, RM, Security etc probably want
rather larger minimums than two.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
fter all the approval steps have been passed not being
adequately fulfilled)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
t at least this long.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
3 weeks now with 30 people ahead of me and
no progress, this might take some time
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
59 matches
Mail list logo