On 11/4/21 8:14 PM, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> The hardest part may very well be changing all the CNAME/A
> records[1][2]
Thanks for volunteering! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Hi Russ,
thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
that I wonder:
- (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
adopting them? Maybe with some kind of role-playing ga
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I don't understand the question.
> That system does not currently exist, and therefore this could
> not have happened
Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that
deductive logic misses key insights. [1]
More broadly, y
Russ Allbery schreef op 7 november 2021 22:33:48 GMT+02:00:
>Hi all,
>
>I think the discussion has mostly died down on my draft GR. Wouter's
>alternative proposal has some support, but not the sort of overwhelming
>support that would lead me to believe I should drop my proposal in favor
>of his,
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't understand the question. That system does not currently exist,
>> and therefore this could not have happened
> Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that deductive
> logic misses key insigh
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I have a few outstanding things I'd like to change to my proposal, but
> I'm currently on holiday until the 15th without access to my laptop. I
> had intended to post those updates before I left, as well as notify
> people that I'm off, but things got a bit busy just bef
Charles Plessy writes:
> thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
> convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
> that I wonder:
> - (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
>adopting them? Maybe with som
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Would it make
Charles> sense t
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> Hi,
Felix> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:45 PM Joerg Jaspert
wrote:
>>
>> I am pretty sure that was a 100% calculated move to go directly
>> to this.
Felix> It was impromptu. The mail was intentional only in the sense
Felix>
Sam Hartman writes:
> Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
> Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
> Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
> Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Woul
Russ made a final call for informal discussion.
I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
now, or in a separate GR.
The rationale for handling things now is that we can get it done with
and if a controversial GR comes up, we'll have the option of secret
ballots if
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-08 08:18]:
Probably the simplest fix would be to add something like this as a new
point A.0.3. Do people think it would be worth adding something like
this?
If a proposal (or ballot option; see section §A.1) requires some
number of sponsors N, only the first N Dev
On 2021-11-08 12 h 01, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> Russ made a final call for informal discussion.
> I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
> now, or in a separate GR.
I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
Although I welcome Russ' & al. efforts in
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:43 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Maybe you could
> try rephrasing in the hope that I may understand a different version of
> the question better?
The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
> > now, or in a separate GR.
> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
[...]
> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the propose
Holger> all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it
Holger> disrespectful to hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work.
I'm frustrated reading this message because it sounds like you've jumped
to the assumption that I'm hijacking Russ's work without coordinating
with him.
I don't thi
Your proposal seems fine at first glance. I would prefer to see this
handled as a separate GR. If they don't conflict textually, you could
run them in parallel, but honestly I'd prefer to see them run in series.
A few more weeks of delay doesn't seem to be a problem for this topic.
--
Richard
Felix Lechner writes:
> The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
> prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It is the opposite
> of what you wrote.
I think the detail that you may be missing is that under Wouter's system
for extending the discussion period,
Hi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> rather than jumping to disrespect.
Please let's not fight fire with fire. I found Holger's comment quite
compassionate—at least compared to the comments he directed at me—and
would like to congratulate him.
He did not know that his facts
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
> [...]
>> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only make things more
>> complex and make the issues at hand harder to understand.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Holger> all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it
> Holger> disrespectful to hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work.
> I'm frustrated reading this message because it sounds like you've jumped
> to the assumption that I'
Hi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
> yes, I largely agree
Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
constitutional amendments should be based on sound premises.
As to the point bet
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
>> yes, I largely agree
> Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
> constitutional amendments should be based on sound prem
24 matches
Mail list logo
