Hi,
Peter Samuelson:
Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR should
be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that it can beat
another option if only a few people rank it higher? I am not in favor
of that.
You can't give any one option more weight in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/11/14 11:52, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Peter Samuelson:
Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR
should be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that
it can beat another option if only a few
[Daniel Pocock]
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this
be better than people leaving outright?
That sounds like a pretty good description of either a GR, or the
Technical Committee. We have both
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would
Hi,
Stephen Gran:
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions?
I veto this idea.
I agree.
If you want to block a change, convince the rest of us that it's a bad
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
cheers,
Holger, who might have forgotten to indicate sarcasm...
signature.asc
Description
On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to
upload something before checking it is 100% free?
That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a
mandate to do exactly that.
The veto we're talking about here is more along
On 13/11/14 15:25, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to
upload something before checking it is 100% free?
That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a
mandate to do exactly
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created
On 11/13/2014 05:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
If veto is dead, what
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:04:05 +0100
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto
* Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro, 2014-11-12, 11:04:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would
a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them?
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
suggestions
However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining
On 12/11/14 10:04, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better
:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from complexity and force people back
Hi Daniel,
aint the GR process exactly that, a way to say veto? Compare the current
vote...
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from
another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them?
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
suggestions
.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them?
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other
that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than people leaving outright?
Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them?
I
:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock
wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel
that the only option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for
example, allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto
decisions? Would this be better than people
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 06:44:50PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
You're expecting people proposing GRs to be receptive to rational
argument.
I fear you've not been paying close attention recently. Well
done. I congratulate you on your wisdom.
If rational argument is not necessary, then
On 11/12/2014 02:04 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:20:01 +0100, zlatan wrote:
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in
project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
When you have a small number of people involved in a 'community' then you
can get by with little
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than
* Daniel Pocock (dan...@pocock.pro) [141112 13:42]:
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus
Or we could fix the TC instead.
It would be lovely
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:08:23PM +0100]:
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
suggestions
However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential
package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The
implication
would be able to veto. The
implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but
they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain
some essential packages.
As a DPL delegate, I'd strongly veto that idea. That clearly creates
first- and second-class citizens
Em Seg, 2005-08-22 às 10:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The constitution states that no developer can have democratic
control imposed on them at all. Indeed, I reject any such control
over
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The constitution also states that no developer can work actively against
the implementation of such a decision made by the project[0]. Not doing
the work and not letting anyone else do it would constitute 'working
actively againt'.
Quite the
[Thomas Bushnell]
Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
against something.
Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
others from doing the work is working actively against it. If you do
both, you are working actively against it.
--
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Thomas Bushnell]
Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
against something.
Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
others from doing the work is working actively against it. If you do
Hello David,
* David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED], [2005-08-21 19:44 -0400]:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Wouter Verhelst]
b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
Em Ter, 2005-08-23 às 09:54 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Thomas Bushnell]
Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
against something.
Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Thomas Bushnell]
Quite the contrary; it seems to me that this is to work *passively*
against something.
Not doing the work is working passively against it, while prohibiting
others from doing the
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
[Wouter Verhelst]
b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept
[Wouter Verhelst]
b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept decisions made by a majority of debian developers, or rejects
democratic control,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Wouter Verhelst]
b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Wouter Verhelst]
b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept
44 matches
Mail list logo
