Re: Status on publishing platforms
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:19:28PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: I apologize for the delay in publishing the Project Leader platforms. They have not yet been put up on vote.debian.org, since I have received only two of the four candidate platforms to date. I strongly urge the remaining candidates to please send me the platforms asap. And now, I'm told, Manoj has three, leaving me the hold up. Here's the skinny: Overfiend Manoj: sorry, I have been really busy, and am trying to roll out XFree86 4.2.1-6 at the moment Overfiend Manoj: to fix a FTBFS Overfiend which is holding up KDE 3.1 Joy Overfiend: use one of the old platform :)) doogie Overfiend: who cares? Joy heh. took the words from my moth Joy mouth * Overfiend shrugs. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... Manoj Overfiend: some intimation would have been nice Manoj Overfiend: Do you have an ETA on the platform? Overfiend Manoj: I've barely even been on IRC all weekend Overfiend Manoj: I'll work on it when I get home this evening Overfiend Manoj: that's approx 7pm GMT-0500 Manoj Overfiend: Ok. I'll so inform -vote Overfiend so I'll try to have you something mailed by 10pm GMT-0500 * Overfiend sighs. Not nearly enough time to do serious analysis of the questionnaire result. I guess I can go through and edits the comments for idiolect and then just post the raw results somewhere. Manoj Overfiend: Or you may inform -vote (since you could then provide the reaons better than I probably could) (For those keeping score at home: Overfiend me, Branden Robinson Manoj Project Secretary Manoj Srivastava doogie Adam Heath Joy Josip Rodin Now you KDE 3.1 fans know who to flame. ;-) ) So, there you have it. The questionnaire results were extremely interesting but it's not worth holding up my platform for any longer. I will therefore have to write my platform with only my gut reaction to the questionnaire replies instead of a rigorous, methodical analysis calculated to win me the maximum number of votes. :) Thus, hopefully within 12 hours or so you folks will have my platform. So that you aren't completely in the dark, I will direct you to my platform for last year. There will be changes, of course, but there is not much that I would actively throw out (the qmail on murphy issue, which was near the bottom of the list anyway, has of course been resolved in the past year). http://www.debian.org/vote/2002/platforms/branden The most important thing I have learned from the questionnaire results is that THE DEBIAN PROJECT LEADER'S DELEGATES should remain at the top of my agenda. It could be broadened in scope a little bit to imply more attentive supervision of foundering infrastructure in general, but ultimately the solution to Debian's infrastructure problems is going to have to be a leader capable of appointing delegates, and *following up on the progress of those delegations*. I've been thinking about methods to attain this goal, and if the questionnaire results are highly representative of the electorate, than I expect this issue to see some discussion during the campaign period. Thanks for your attention and patience! -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire msg02439/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: February 17th Voting GR draft
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual question has to do with how supermajorities work, but answering this question is sufficient to answer my real question. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status on publishing platforms
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: And now, I'm told, Manoj has three, leaving me the hold up. ...not anymore. -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean msg02442/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Status on publishing platforms
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:19:28PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: I apologize for the delay in publishing the Project Leader platforms. They have not yet been put up on vote.debian.org, since I have received only two of the four candidate platforms to date. I strongly urge the remaining candidates to please send me the platforms asap. And now, I'm told, Manoj has three, leaving me the hold up. Here's the skinny: Overfiend Manoj: sorry, I have been really busy, and am trying to roll out XFree86 4.2.1-6 at the moment Overfiend Manoj: to fix a FTBFS Overfiend which is holding up KDE 3.1 Joy Overfiend: use one of the old platform :)) doogie Overfiend: who cares? Joy heh. took the words from my moth Joy mouth * Overfiend shrugs. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't... Manoj Overfiend: some intimation would have been nice Manoj Overfiend: Do you have an ETA on the platform? Overfiend Manoj: I've barely even been on IRC all weekend Overfiend Manoj: I'll work on it when I get home this evening Overfiend Manoj: that's approx 7pm GMT-0500 Manoj Overfiend: Ok. I'll so inform -vote Overfiend so I'll try to have you something mailed by 10pm GMT-0500 * Overfiend sighs. Not nearly enough time to do serious analysis of the questionnaire result. I guess I can go through and edits the comments for idiolect and then just post the raw results somewhere. Manoj Overfiend: Or you may inform -vote (since you could then provide the reaons better than I probably could) (For those keeping score at home: Overfiend me, Branden Robinson Manoj Project Secretary Manoj Srivastava doogie Adam Heath Joy Josip Rodin Now you KDE 3.1 fans know who to flame. ;-) ) So, there you have it. The questionnaire results were extremely interesting but it's not worth holding up my platform for any longer. I will therefore have to write my platform with only my gut reaction to the questionnaire replies instead of a rigorous, methodical analysis calculated to win me the maximum number of votes. :) Thus, hopefully within 12 hours or so you folks will have my platform. So that you aren't completely in the dark, I will direct you to my platform for last year. There will be changes, of course, but there is not much that I would actively throw out (the qmail on murphy issue, which was near the bottom of the list anyway, has of course been resolved in the past year). http://www.debian.org/vote/2002/platforms/branden The most important thing I have learned from the questionnaire results is that THE DEBIAN PROJECT LEADER'S DELEGATES should remain at the top of my agenda. It could be broadened in scope a little bit to imply more attentive supervision of foundering infrastructure in general, but ultimately the solution to Debian's infrastructure problems is going to have to be a leader capable of appointing delegates, and *following up on the progress of those delegations*. I've been thinking about methods to attain this goal, and if the questionnaire results are highly representative of the electorate, than I expect this issue to see some discussion during the campaign period. Thanks for your attention and patience! -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire pgpdQ4oZfqya4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: February 17th Voting GR draft
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual question has to do with how supermajorities work, but answering this question is sufficient to answer my real question.
Re: February 17th Voting GR draft
Sam Hartman wrote: Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I think that, under the proposal as made, this is correct. I think that, as a matter of voting, it should be wrong. I hold the position that there should always be an option to reject, without more discussion, a GR. When this has been brought up in the past, I believe that it has been recommended that a reject/status-quo amendment be proposed by someone who wants to reject the GR (and gets it seconded) as a way of getting a reject option on the ballot. It has also been mentioned that because of the way that GRs are proposed, there is little practical difference between reject and further discussion. I don't agree with either of these. I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual question has to do with how supermajorities work, but answering this question is sufficient to answer my real question. Ask your actual question, then.
Re: Status on publishing platforms
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: And now, I'm told, Manoj has three, leaving me the hold up. ...not anymore. -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean pgpPSKDlkVo9T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: February 17th Voting GR draft
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: Sam Hartman wrote: Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I think that, under the proposal as made, this is correct. Yes. When this has been brought up in the past, I believe that it has been recommended that a reject/status-quo amendment be proposed by someone who wants to reject the GR (and gets it seconded) as a way of getting a reject option on the ballot. Yes. If there are going to be more people voting to reject the proposal than accept it, this should not be a difficulty. It also forces you to be clear on what, exactly, it means to reject the proposal. For example, we might have a vote at some point along the lines of The developers resolve to allow modifications to the social contract with a 2:1 supermajority. If that vote doesn't pass, it'll remain unclear what we can do to modify the social contract -- is a simple majority vote enough, or can it not be changed at all? People are quite happy to argue each way. Which is to say a No. option has no meaning, but specific counter proposals are entirely reasonable. In Usenet votes there is (or was, last I looked) a cabal that votes No on every ballot to ensure that there really is enough support for a new group to warrant its creation. If you want, you can always start up a little cabal that works out what form a rejection should take, and propose and second it. I don't think that's something that can be properly done mechanically or by the secretary, though. IMHO, etc. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpyy2GyMVama.pgp Description: PGP signature
