On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > AMENDMENT START
> > >
> > > Repl
Frans Pop wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> > proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> > required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> > required number of seconds returns to K."
>
> Alt
On Saturday 21 March 2009 13:00:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
> > are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel
> > it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I
> > do not have th
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>>
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack
MJ Ray wrote:
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds,
MJ Ray writes:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> pro
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > AMENDMENT START
> > >
> >
MJ Ray writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>>
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
>>> lack of evidence about the
Romain Beauxis 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 about them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> >
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if gen
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
>
> I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
> way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
> willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
> quality is obvious
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
> secon
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.to...@rastageeks.org>
<200903250
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, b
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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.
Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even
though it i
Gunnar Wolf 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 take into cons
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 poin
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
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 80
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:51:37PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >
> >PROPOSAL START
> >
> >General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> >P
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
> change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
> I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
> requirements from 31 to 30, which is wha
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:
>
>PROPOSAL START
>
>General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
>Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
>to i
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
> number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x > 1). I
> think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
> sink for the project
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum :
>> 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 might bar them f
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
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 Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:34AM -0500, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote,
> there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do
> not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not
> active at all. I do no
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This
> would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary,
> without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could
> you add those to your propo
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one
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 m
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
--
hermanr_: I never studied german
I
Bill Allombert 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 discriminate and treats all DDs equally
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>
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 t
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:56:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requi
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian projec
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
> In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
> (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
> [...]
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debi
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
> (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
> [...]
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
> > General Resolutions are an im
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the D
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus..
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
> [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.
Also
On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
> something like "take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
> to calculate Q".
Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying "20 out of 1000
sho
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> There
> There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
> are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
> is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
> not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this s
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> t
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I thi
60 matches
Mail list logo
