On Sat Jan 10 15:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > How do you define "relevant"? The vote is run because someome proposed a
> > > GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
> > > them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivati
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > How do you define "relevant"? The vote is run because someome proposed a
> > GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
> > them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to
> > have a link to mail where t
[ Moving the discussion to -project. Please do remember to drop -vote from the
recipients list if you follow up. ]
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
> >
> > (I assume that was a typo for
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [Raphael:]
> > > I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
>
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > - To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
> > >require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
> > >of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
> > >the vote:
> > >The Propos
Clint Adams writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for
votes for the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
> >
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > - The Secretary should explicitly have the power to delay a GR
> >vote by up to (say) two
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
> never needed.
Agreed.
> We should fix the constitution so that we can leave the duty of
> interpreting the constitution to the secretary.
Agreed.
> We ju
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> The GR ballot should only give the URL on vote.debian.org where you would
> find links behind each proposer/seconder. Ideally those links point
> directly to the debian-vote archive so that it lets people jump into
> discussions directly and form their own opinion.
I th
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> The big goal, for me at least, and hopefully for the other participants, is an
> eventual agreement on what the constitution says, or alternatively, a broadly
> accepted amendment of the constitution that clarifies unclear matters and
> settles t
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Can we stop this absurd discussion/reasoning?
I don't believe it is absurd. But reading some of the private replies I've
already got to my other mail, it seems my motivation for this discussion has
not been obvious.
To me, this d
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:08PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
I would like the readers of this list to tell me (PRIVATELY - there is no need
to clutter this list) whether they consider this characterisation of my
messages
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, 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.
>
> If the GR proposal does not
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, 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.
If the GR proposal does not say that it is a nonbinding position statement or
an overrid
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
- "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
[I see that we're now repeating discussions already had up-list, so this
will probably be my last post to this subthread.]
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Nor is it anything short of absurd for the Secretary to declare that a
> > resolution amends a Foundat
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 16:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
> > you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the
> > Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
> > requires th
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 01:49:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> > response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> > the fundamenta
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:30:05PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I don't think trivial cases are going to be much of a problem. In any
> > case, I was thinking of a voting procedure for this body where the few
> > voters would only be allowed to vote "yes" or "no", plus perhaps a
> > rationale; w
Hi Mike,
as a fellow non-DD Debian user and advocate, I feel...
Mike Bird wrote:
Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased delegate
I would urge the DPL to re-appoint Manoj
...that you've disqualified yourself from commenting on matters
concerning the Debian constitution.
Regards,
Thank your for an excellent and insightful analysis. I wish
to touch on just one point:
On Thu January 1 2009 06:44:24 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> What we need is an oracle that says: "this is the correct interpretation of
> the Constitution". The oracle needs to be respected by both of us s
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting a powe
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:01:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think that we have made the mistake of giving too much power to one
> person. While I do not think Manoj willingly abused that power, I do
> think that this has made it harder for him to retain his objectivity;
> and that he has l
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081231 21:55]:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for
> > the "first call" on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an
> > appeal instance which
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
> > > should be an instance of app
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
> > should be an instance of appeal like the TC (though this isn't technical,
> > but we have a body th
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
> > - In a country, the body that decides whether a law is or is not
> > unconstitutional, can only do so when a citizen explicitly asks it to
> > do so. In the absence of such
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> > > the DFS
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
> > requirements.
>
> (...)
>
> So, yes, that does require interpretation.
Actually I said
- "Wouter Verhelst" wrote:
> Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it
> cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the
> social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden.
> I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a tem
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> > the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
Hallo,
actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities
in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html
Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed
off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee
mailing list. See also section 7 of my p
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from "drop all
> options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the
> winner" to "determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes
> majority requireme
Ean Schuessler wrote:
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone". From the
beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the
organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organizatio
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
> an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone".
From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort
the sh
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal
> to the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one
> and other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discussion"
> effectively provides a "we should do this
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Oh gee, so the US is using Condorcet now?
You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal to
the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one and
other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discuss
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
> capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
> I think the interpretation of "supersede" that has been tendered by the
> previous secretary is suffi
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 02:22:40PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
> > > might be formally required,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:38:55PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
> > general.
> To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
> American politics. A supermajority insures
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
> general.
To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
American politics. A supermajority insures that a razor thin majority can't end
up doing something radically disagr
On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
> > might be formally required, and in my opinion the corollary is that
> > supermajorities are a bad ide
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > if a majority of voters vote that we should put
> > Nvidia drivers in main, then your fundamental problem is that you have a
> > majority of people (or at le
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The other option you're proposing here, to prevent them from doing what they
> want to unless they have a 3:1 majority, reduces to "coerce the majority to
> do what you say they should do, even though they don't think you're right".
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> if a majority of voters vote that we should put
> Nvidia drivers in main, then your fundamental problem is that you have a
> majority of people (or at least, voters) in Debian who think it's ok to put
> Nvidia drivers in main. Your
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:09:32PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who
> > didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the
> > voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position stateme
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
> Furthermore, by my reading of the constitution, even if a delegate
> override or a position statement clearly and obviously contradicted the
> DFSG, as long as it doesn't actually change or set aside the DFSG, it's
> still just
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They were drafted before the constit
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires
> only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution,
> to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you
> override the ftp-master's d
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 Platonic True
> >> Meaning that exists outside
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> 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.
They were drafted before the constitution was and their binding power does
*not* flow *
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 Platonic True
>> Meaning that exists outside of the governance process. The words mean
>> what p
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There's nothing in the consititution that prohibits passing nonsensical
> GRs or GRs that contradict foundation documents, as long as they don't
> actually alter the foundation documents.
Given a ballot option which does not explicitly specify whether or
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project
>> is to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what
>> the project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything.
> But... _
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing
> it:
>
> The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is
> to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the
> project wants. They do
Matthew Johnson writes:
> So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says
> "we will do X" but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it
> would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all?
> What's the point?
Here's the way I see it, which I thi
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, 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 accepted ? If yes, then
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, 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 accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> > document. Otherwise it doesn't.
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, 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 accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
>>
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane
> and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in
> a bad situation anyway. :-)
Insanity is subjective. In some sense, some of the the
interpretations of ou
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 accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
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 accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> > document. Otherwise it doesn't.
>
> So, if someon
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> > > say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
> >
> > I wouldn't say that it is that eas
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 accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone proposes a GR saying "we will ship the binary NVidia
dri
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
> > document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
> > simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
> > say, a
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:35:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You
> > cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though
> > temporarily, bypa
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> > say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> > the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
> > of the secretary (contrary
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
> say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time that this is not the
> case, you should assume t
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
> the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
> of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
> package
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
> as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
> all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
> in performing their duties.
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:46:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
>> > when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
>> > changed? I didn't find
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 02:46:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
> > when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
> > changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
> >
On Thu, Dec 18 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No other body for enforcement of the DFSG is defined in the
> constitution. It's up to individual developers to determine for
> themselves whether their actions are in keeping with the DFSG/SC, and
> with the promise they made when they became DDs to
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> > >
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> > not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
> > its
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Enforcement of the foundation documents is not defined in the constitution,
> so no, this is not a question of constitutional law.
I'm not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that the foundation
documents do not imply any required behavior for project
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
> its application, without reaching the quorum that would be necessary to
> ex
Brian May dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:45:47AM +1100]:
> > (...)
> >A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> >which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> >issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
> >
> >B) If we
Hi,
just so that I've said this here too:
On Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava
wrote:
> > >If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> > > vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or some
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I was just thinking of postposing the end-of-vote cron job, so
> no re-voting would be needed.
>
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one harping on /that/ point. None of
> the GR proposals mandate a particular interpretation of the legality of any
> component of the archive, the release team has never indicated that they
> intended to ignore legal problems wh
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:12PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
> canceled.
>
> My suggestion is to do a very simple vote first, with only two choices:
>
> a) continue with the release process and don't wait for further GRs
>
>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who
> decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer
> decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority
> to anyon
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:45:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to
> the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet
> Debian.
I don't like the current vote either and wouldn't mind if it was
cance
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots su
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You made comments, and in
> <874p1a6l0n@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> were instructed to
> get the approval of the proposer of the option in order for the
> secretary to change the title of the option. FWICT, you either did not
> attempt to do so,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>
If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
th
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the
> > issues are orthogonal.
> Can these people explain why they think so? ANd it would help if
> they could say why the arguments I present to say it is a single issue
> ar
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > > I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in
> > > mind. Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means
> > > that dissenting
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Also, resolving to do
> something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
> equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and
> adhereing to that.
No. It's simply taking a decision on the best way to reach
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> > I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
> > Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
> > votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if th
Manoj Srivastava (2008-12-17 17:02 -0600) wrote:
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the
> current vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and
> restart the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I
> do not think the secretary has the
On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May
wrote:
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If we do all this, we would be voting:
> >
> > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> > issues or what h
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
>> voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
>> to the results being gamed.
>
> This is an hypothetical cas
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
