* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040402 07:10]:
> So, can we discuss the different sections separately, and then perhaps
> replace the current proposals (much of which I do like) with
> section-by-section consideration, so that we can get each section as
> good as possible?
I'd certai
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040402 07:10]:
> So, can we discuss the different sections separately, and then perhaps
> replace the current proposals (much of which I do like) with
> section-by-section consideration, so that we can get each section as
> good as possible?
I'd certai
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
> multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
> the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
> perceived issue(s) with different section(s)
[Yet again, I'm subscribed to -vote. Do *NOT* Cc: me.[1]]
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't have the arrogance to just declare "this is the best way"
> without hearing discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
>
> Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you only like specific parts of a proposal, and there are enough
> people who share you viewpoint for it to matter (6 people to second
> your proposal) then you just need to propose an amendment
> incorporating the parts you like and removing the part
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > > discrete proposals in each of the two vers
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
> multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
> the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
> perceived issue(s) with different section(s)
[Yet again, I'm subscribed to -vote. Do *NOT* Cc: me.[1]]
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't have the arrogance to just declare "this is the best way"
> without hearing discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
>
> Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you only like specific parts of a proposal, and there are enough
> people who share you viewpoint for it to matter (6 people to second
> your proposal) then you just need to propose an amendment
> incorporating the parts you like and removing the part
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > > discrete proposals in each of the two vers
[Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.]
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The voting process as I understand it forces me to vote for complete
> alternative proposals, not partial amendments.
Sortof. It requires the former, but you can use the sytem to ac
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, sure. I'm just saying that there's no need to split this into
> multiple separate votes when people who don't like certain aspects of
> a proposal can merely suggest changes to the proposal and/or submit
> amendments for seconding. [Andrew can pick a
[Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.]
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The voting process as I understand it forces me to vote for complete
> alternative proposals, not partial amendments.
Sortof. It requires the former, but you can use the sytem to ac
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, sure. I'm just saying that there's no need to split this into
> multiple separate votes when people who don't like certain aspects of
> a proposal can merely suggest changes to the proposal and/or submit
> amendments for seconding. [Andrew can pick a
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
> I don't see a problem with asking Andrew whether he'd be willing to
> do modify his proposal, if he sees the merit of othere people's
> comments. If he does not like it, amendments can still be
> formulated, but there's no need to clutter the ballot witho
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
> I don't see a problem with asking Andrew whether he'd be willing to
> do modify his proposal, if he sees the merit of othere people's
> comments. If he does not like it, amendments can still be
> formulated, but there's no need to clutter the ballot witho
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> > might like some and not others. I would hate
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> > discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> > might like some and not others. I would hate
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> might like some and not others. I would hate to have to vote
> against the ones I like just because they are tied t
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 05:25]:
> I think we should handle changes to each section separately.
Sounds like a good idea.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Of course there are interactions between, but there are several
> discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I
> might like some and not others. I would hate to have to vote
> against the ones I like just because they are tied t
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040327 05:25]:
> I think we should handle changes to each section separately.
Sounds like a good idea.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
22 matches
Mail list logo
