On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
> have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
> see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
> for this one.
>
aj wrote:
> Joey Hess
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
Anyway, it's always interesting to se
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> 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
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking
>> about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1,
>> so I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated.
>
On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > Thank you for the detailed analysis.
> >
> > You missed one point:
> > Excluding votes where more than one
> > option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
> > following results:
> > Option 1:
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
consistent to second something then
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Thank you for the detailed analysis.
>
> You missed one point:
> Excluding votes where more than one
> option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
> following results:
> Option 1: 93
> Option 2: 90
> Option 3: 61
> Option 4: 12
> "Invalid" votes
On 16/12/08 at 06:55 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> > The winners are:
> > Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
> > leading to a new proposal."
>
> which, aiui was the original r
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:55:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> (or at least I) mightn't expect.
[...]
> Jurij Smakov - voted the amendment over the original resolution
Not sure how it became an amendment, but option 1
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> The winners are:
> Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
> leading to a new proposal."
which, aiui was the original resolution, namely:
The Debian Project recognizes that ma
devo...@vote.debian.org (15/12/2008):
> digraph Results {
> ranksep=0.25;
> "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" [
> style="filled" , fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10 ];
> "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" ->
> "Further D
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
De
12 matches
Mail list logo
