Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]: Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes: Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre: I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm *really* not happy with that, and I'm following through now. Uh, I don't quite get this: you shortened the discussion period, but at the same time asked the secretary to delay the vote? Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have just missed it.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Will you just stand still? -- Luke Danes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bundled votes and the secretary
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. and from the current vote: 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so. Now explain to me how a genuine interpretation of the Constitution let the former need simple majority and the latter super majority. The biggest difference is the under a license that complies with the DFSG part. There is also the udeb part that's different. Note that we also have the an option (choice 5) with the under a license that complies with the DFSG part and that doesn't have the 3:1 majority requirement. We could have worded it like in '06 and achieve the same then (IOW there is no gain in the wording difference that you believe - and I still do not believe it - warrants the 3:1 majority wrt what this option tries to achieve). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpOskOneN1fA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard Resolution Procedures which allows this to be done. IMO A.1.1 allows this, and A.3.4 of course means that the secretary's opinion on this is the correct one. Option 1 is either meaningless or an override of a delegate decision, but the ballot doesn't reflect this. It is a statement that a delegate decision is unconstitutional. No, it's not. It says nothing at all about a delegate decision violating either the constitution or the DFSG. The wording of choice one is a delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and is not in the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even mention there *was* a delegate decision. I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly not shared by everyone. Without that assumption, I agree that option 1 is only an override of a delegate's decision. (This makes some other stuff irrelevant, so I cut it out.) About ignoring the DFSG: (Note that the constitution doesn't allow them to.) Please show me exactly where it says that. Huh? Should the foundation documents say that they can't be ignored? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit : Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have just missed it.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no? I don't read shorten in this link, only start. Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 16:50:52 Adeodato Simó, vous avez écrit : Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have just missed it.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no? I don't read shorten in this link, only start. From that mail: So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on November 23th, or, if the DPL desires to shorten the discussion period, november 16th). We've had more than enough discussion about this - please start ASAP. I would hope that's clear enough from the context quoted: shorten the discussion == start ASAP. I did *not* explicitly ask for the voting period to be shortened. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement between them? I believe this only applies in the context of 7.2 (replacing the secretary). This was discussed some on debian-vote earlier. My reading of this is that 7.2 is an example or clarification of when 4.1.7 can be applied. If this is a bug in the constitution, or the original intention of it or not is open to debate, as is the interpretation of course. Neil -- Tolimar Debian women - porting the most succesfull operating system to the most unknown architecture signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]: Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have just missed it.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no? Yeah, sorry, he did indeed. Mea culpa; I was confusing discussion and vote in my head. Apologies for the resulting noise. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard Resolution Procedures which allows this to be done. IMO A.1.1 allows this, Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an amendment so far as I can tell. and A.3.4 of course means that the secretary's opinion on this is the correct one. Yes, agreed, but I can still disagree with that decision and say that it feels like overreaching to decide it that way. No, it's not. It says nothing at all about a delegate decision violating either the constitution or the DFSG. The wording of choice one is a delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and is not in the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even mention there *was* a delegate decision. I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly not shared by everyone. Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that they're ignoring the DFSG? I don't believe they are either. I understand that you disagree, but that doesn't make my opinion go away. Option 4 explains what I believe the situation to be. They're making hard tradeoffs between a set of constraints that are currently in conflict. I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. You are accusing them of breaking an oath or promise, and it's hardly surprising that the reaction is therefore rather strong and not conducive to a polite conversation. About ignoring the DFSG: (Note that the constitution doesn't allow them to.) Please show me exactly where it says that. Huh? Should the foundation documents say that they can't be ignored? I made no statements about that. You said that the constitution doesn't allow the release team to ignore the DFSG. Apart from the question of whether they're doing that (which as stated I don't believe they are), I don't see anything in the constitution that says that. If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can tell, there isn't, apart from application to voting specifically. Any such decisions therefore, under the constitution, are resolved the same way as any other delegate decision so far as I can tell. There's no special magic that applies because one thinks a delegate decision violates a foundation document, nor any pre-emptive rejection of such a decision. As near as I can tell, the only thing that binds individual developers to follow the foundation documents are the promises that we all made when we joined the project to do so, which means that our understanding and interpretation of what they mean and how they should be applied is what is most relevant in the absence of a GR override of a decision. It's kind of an intriguing way of organizing it. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 20:18, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. You are accusing them of breaking an oath or promise, and it's hardly surprising that the reaction is therefore rather strong and not conducive to a polite conversation. A perfect summary of what is going on/wrong, at the moment. I ask everyone to follow the above. And to get Lenny out the door ;) Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can tell, there isn't, apart from application to voting specifically. There isn't anything in the constitution about the application of foundation documents to voting either, other than the rule about superseding them. If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds that an option conflicts with a foundation document, one would have expected him to have said so explicitly. -M- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard Resolution Procedures which allows this to be done. IMO A.1.1 allows this, Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an amendment so far as I can tell. It says according to the requirements for a new resolution, which seems to allow things proposed as a new resolution to really be amendments. I admit it's not really clear, and can as well mean that an amendment is something different which only has the same requirements. and A.3.4 of course means that the secretary's opinion on this is the correct one. Yes, agreed, but I can still disagree with that decision and say that it feels like overreaching to decide it that way. Of course. No, it's not. It says nothing at all about a delegate decision violating either the constitution or the DFSG. The wording of choice one is a delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and is not in the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even mention there *was* a delegate decision. I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly not shared by everyone. Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that they're ignoring the DFSG? Are you talking about my wording, or about the wording of the options? I'm sorry, but I don't see controversy or confrontation in any of them. If you're talking about my text, then I apologize to anyone who is hurt by it; that was not my intention at all. I don't believe they are either. Neither do I. The reason I asked was because you seemed to say that they were, and that FD would allow them to continue doing that. I now understand that you didn't mean that. I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. I think you are talking about me here. I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't actually think so myself. If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can tell, there isn't, apart from application to voting specifically. Any such decisions therefore, under the constitution, are resolved the same way as any other delegate decision so far as I can tell. There's no special magic that applies because one thinks a delegate decision violates a foundation document, nor any pre-emptive rejection of such a decision. As near as I can tell, the only thing that binds individual developers to follow the foundation documents are the promises that we all made when we joined the project to do so, which means that our understanding and interpretation of what they mean and how they should be applied is what is most relevant in the absence of a GR override of a decision. I think I agree with this... However, it means that if anyone (delegate or other DD) is violating a foundation document, only a 1:1 majority is needed to allow it by not deciding to forbid it. That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed. It's kind of an intriguing way of organizing it. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I would have to think about that as well. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 23:38, Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org wrote: I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. I think you are talking about me here. I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't actually think so myself. I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind. Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if that is on purpose or a honest mistake, but I am assuming good faith with Manoj as with everyone else. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an amendment so far as I can tell. It says according to the requirements for a new resolution, which seems to allow things proposed as a new resolution to really be amendments. I believe that you really think that, but I don't understand how you could get that from that text. How does saying that the procedure for making an amendment involves the same requirements as making a new resolution imply that new resolutions can be turned into amendments? I admit it's not really clear, and can as well mean that an amendment is something different which only has the same requirements. Until this thread, I would have thought that it was completely clear. I'm still not managing to see another reading than the one that to me is obvious. (Although I guess that's other people's reactions to my understanding of what the SC says, ironically.) I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly not shared by everyone. Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that they're ignoring the DFSG? Are you talking about my wording, or about the wording of the options? I was talking about your wording. I don't believe they are either. Neither do I. The reason I asked was because you seemed to say that they were, and that FD would allow them to continue doing that. I now understand that you didn't mean that. I definitely wasn't saying that. I just checked all of my messages to this thread and I have never used the word ignore except in response to your messages citing things that you're saying, so I'm not sure how you could have gotten that idea, but I apologize for giving the impression. I think I understand where your wording came from now. It was an attempt to restate what you thought my position was? It's very different from my actual position, so I didn't recognize it at all. I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. I think you are talking about me here. Among others, but yes. I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't actually think so myself. Okay, it appears to have all been a misunderstanding. I'm not sure how we managed to misunderstand each other to that degree, but I guess it happens. I think I agree with this... However, it means that if anyone (delegate or other DD) is violating a foundation document, only a 1:1 majority is needed to allow it by not deciding to forbid it. Right, via a delegate override. That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed. This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. (Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing this again for squeeze. But that doesn't change my analysis of what the proposal originally put forward was actually intended to do.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite clear here. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
- Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite clear here. If the new interpretation alters the meaning of the document then the operation is functionally identical. This discussion is taking on shades of 1984... war is peace, binaries are source, etc. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: - Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite clear here. If the new interpretation alters the meaning of the document then the operation is functionally identical. Making a project statement about what the document means by definition doesn't alter anything except possibly the previous project sense of the meaning, which should *never* have been subject to a 3:1 majority requirement. This is the way the decision-making process in the constitution works, so far as I can tell. Maybe you would like to amend the constitution? If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority to anyone and hence it devolves to the individual developers doing their work, as possibly overridden by a delegate decision or a GR (none of which require a 3:1 majority). I understand why you might want the decision-making process that you're arguing for, but it isn't the one that we have right now, and saying that you want it doesn't put it into effect. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: - Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote: Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite clear here. If the new interpretation alters the meaning of the document then the operation is functionally identical. Making a project statement about what the document means by definition doesn't alter anything except possibly the previous project sense of the meaning, which should *never* have been subject to a 3:1 majority requirement. This is the way the decision-making process in the constitution works, so far as I can tell. Maybe you would like to amend the constitution? If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority to anyone and hence it devolves to the individual developers doing their work, as possibly overridden by a delegate decision or a GR (none of which require a 3:1 majority). I understand why you might want the decision-making process that you're arguing for, but it isn't the one that we have right now, and saying that you want it doesn't put it into effect. Absolutely. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed. This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your *interpretation* of the foundation documents that led to the override, short of modifying the foundation document to include that interpretation. But such modifications definitely shouldn't happen without the express intent of the proposer. (Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing this again for squeeze. 100% agreement. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your *interpretation* of the foundation documents that led to the override, short of modifying the foundation document to include that interpretation. But such modifications definitely shouldn't happen without the express intent of the proposer. Yup, I agree with that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]: This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. I don't think that overriding can be done with 1:1-majority, but has the same requirements as changing. With the rest I however agree. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes: * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]: This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. I don't think that overriding can be done with 1:1-majority, but has the same requirements as changing. With the rest I however agree. Overriding the decision of a developer (which is what I was referring to) does not have any supermajority requirement. Constitution 4.1.3. The constitution does not explicitly provide any mechanism to override a foundation document (which I think may have been what you thought I was referring to), only issue, supersede, and withdraw them. The assumption underlying previous votes was presumably that overriding a foundation document was supersession under the definition: 1) (a) to cause to be set aside Personally, I think that's a bit of a stretch. The rules lawyer in me would have preferred to see overrides framed in the form of an actual supersession in the definition: 2) to take the place, room, or position of 3) to displace in favor of another SUPPLANT and include new text which included whatever rule was being made, even if that new text was self-limiting and temporary. But this is probably just me being excessively formalist. (I'm probably making it painfully obvious to everyone on debian-vote why I keep ending up working on standards documents, even though I think writing code is more fun.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]: Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes: * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]: This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement about their interpretation. I don't think that overriding can be done with 1:1-majority, but has the same requirements as changing. With the rest I however agree. Overriding the decision of a developer (which is what I was referring to) does not have any supermajority requirement. Constitution 4.1.3. I refered with overriding to overriding a foundation document. Re overriding a developer I agree. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
