* Steve Langasek:
>> The IETF will probably remove Rule 9 altogether (for both IPv4 and IPv6,
>> since the TLA/NLA/SLA model is dead and we're heading for IPv4-style
>> portable addresses in IPv6 land, too).
>
> Is this speculation, or have you heard this from the IETF?
"The IETF" as such does no
Hi Florian,
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:45:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit:
> > Well, maybe we could avoid some bike-shedding. While Ian was too busy
> > writing mails in capital letters, explaining how Debian should weigh in
> > the IETF RFC drafting,
> The IETF will prob
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and
> TC chairmanship"):
> > And FWIW, I don't think TC failed to rule because of the majority
> > rules, but just because t
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:45:31PM +, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit:
> > upstream made a proper fix for IPv4, in a very sensible way, and the
> > problem is gone
>
> Have you got a pointer to the discussion/patch? Thanks.
The patch is that it applies rule9 for ipv4 only to addr
Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC
chairmanship"):
> And FWIW, I don't think TC failed to rule because of the majority
> rules, but just because the issue was technically not easy to solve at
> that time.
The TC w
* Pierre Habouzit:
> Well, maybe we could avoid some bike-shedding. While Ian was too busy
> writing mails in capital letters, explaining how Debian should weigh in
> the IETF RFC drafting,
The IETF will probably remove Rule 9 altogether (for both IPv4 and IPv6,
since the TLA/NLA/SLA model is d
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 08:31:12PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Yes, that too. :-) But as I wrote, for the 50% situation, there is a
> > reason we want that. We want to say "there are more people in favour
> > than against". With the supermajority, we wan
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Yes, that too. :-) But as I wrote, for the 50% situation, there is a
> reason we want that. We want to say "there are more people in favour
> than against". With the supermajority, we want to say "there are
> many more people in favour than against".
Right.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> With 6 people, 1/2 of the votes is 3 votes, with no error. "more than
> 1/2" needs 4 votes, or 4/6th. So even though the stated requirement is
> "more than 1/2", the actual requirement is "at least 4/6th". The
> difference is 1/6th of
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:24:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
> > behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
> > the supermajority spe
On ven, 2008-02-15 at 22:49 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not
> > > require 'X + 1', since the elec
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Because of the error you're making. With 6 people, 2/3 of the votes
> is 4 votes, with no error. "more than 2/3" needs 5 votes, or 5/6th.
> So even though the stated requirement is "more than 2/3", the actual
> requirement is "at least 5/6th". The difference
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not
> > require 'X + 1', since the electorate is so small anyway;
>
> I don’t understand why the pr
On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm not so sure this is an off-by-one *error*; for example, when simple
> majority is required, then a strict 50% against vs 50% in favour result
> should result in the status quo being kept. A simple majority thus needs
> to say "*more* t
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:24:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
> behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
> the supermajority specification in recent versions of the
> constitution.
>
>
> This was dis
This one time, at band camp, Ian Jackson said:
> The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
> behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
> the supermajority specification in recent versions of the
> constitution.
Changing > to >= seems very reaso
The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
the supermajority specification in recent versions of the
constitution.
This was discussed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/05/msg00027.html
and h
17 matches
Mail list logo
