Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
for it.
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
,
debian-v...@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General
resolutions
Message-ID: 20090325060117.ga19...@powerlinux.fr
References: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
2009035302.ga24...@yellowpig 200903240112.34470
Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
seconds, but
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
I understand the furstration
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
important topics.
FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
of those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a
waste of the GR process).
Well, even if
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There was a clear need for a clarification. Why we had to vote on the
clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing
On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision,
since the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen
while there was apprently no consensus for it.
There
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
This theory does not match the project history in any way.
vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes:
And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
recognized as an important viewpoint to
Hi,
On Montag, 23. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
Then make an amendment that produces a lower requirement for seconding
amendments?
sounds like an excellent idea to me, any takers? ;-)
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can propose amendments
On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net:
Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
a high number of seconds
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
I agree. I fail
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.
Neil
--
vorlon We
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:53:02 +0100
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general
resolutions.
This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are
deprived. It does not
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.
Neil
--
pixie hermanr_: I never studied german
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much
23 matches
Mail list logo
