* devo...@vote.debian.org (devo...@vote.debian.org) [081228 00:47]:
Dropping Option 1 because of Majority.
(0.5176991150442477876106194690265486725664) 0.518 (117/226) 1
Dropping Option 2 because of Majority.
(1.736434108527131782945736434108527131783) 1.736 (224/129) 3
Dropping Option
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
option x received over option y.
Option
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
=== === === === ===
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [081228 11:51]:
[ difference between options 2 and 5]
It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
Actually, if one reads the consitution the way I do (and where
Hi,
On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a...@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the best
way to just undo this GR and go back to square one instead?
It seems to me the
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:08:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
by further discussion by 109 votes.
Oh, a further thought came to mind. One way to
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
independently, that could look something like this below:
,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
| The
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
requirements were set
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (t...@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
of the other options on this
Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net writes:
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the
other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change
the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
release...
If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
with an
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than the choices that chose to release.
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian
Social Contract, which I
Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, despite something kinda close to advocacy for the FD option in
the second call for votes on d-d-a, FD lost convincingly to most of the
options on offer. So of any conclusions you might draw, the simplest,
safest and most easily justified seems to be stop discussing
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
should be assigned.
I can only
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than the choices that chose to release.
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For example, having non-free in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
and potentially using
16 matches
Mail list logo
