r...@aybabtu.com (Robert Millan) writes:
So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed ...
In my preamble to the second call for votes,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
This is not true.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
Robert,
I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.
As for trying to bully people about consitution and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Robert Millan wrote:
The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:12:24AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
r...@aybabtu.com (Robert Millan) writes:
So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed ...
In my preamble
On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote:
Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not politicaly sustainable. And in practice they
don't exist anymore, anyway.
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You
Robert Millan dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100]:
(...)
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. The
way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware. They don't
say
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
and sanctioned. Not
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 21:07 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer)
Of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over
the ambiguity of not making any explicit
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer)
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate
this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4.
They did vote for option 4,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
you or anybody.
I don't
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
to the questions he's raised in this thread.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
going to be adopted at present.
There's nothing to be adopted. The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 05:47:00PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote:
Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to
delegate
this responsibility. If
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That
decision was not overridden. Hence, the release
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
government as an
Robert Millan wrote:
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.
And I'm sure you would have been the first one to cry foul, there being,
after all, no constitutional basis for the
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth
noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
I disagree completely.
The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:52:04PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the
vote.
And I'm sure you would have been the first one to
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (12/01/2009):
And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
long as necessary.
We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:54:43PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth
Robert Millan wrote:
Take the exact wording:
This result means that the Debian Lenny release can proceed as the
release team has intended, with the kernel packages currently in the
archive.
and carefully analize this phrase.
I think you are definitely over-anal-izing the situation.
[please don't CC me to emails to debian-vote]
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:13:26PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please, could you send a new message clarifiing the situation, and your
judgement as Secretary?
While this GR was still in the discussion period, Manoj posted
an analysis of what each option meant; and he also judged that
option 5
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be
Hi
It's not usual in me to give up on something when I'm completely certain
that I'm right. I hope you appreciate that I'm doing a great personal
sacrifice here.
Ean said:
Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds
and makes sane discourse impossible.
I've
45 matches
Mail list logo
