Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. I hereby second both options. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Le Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:58:40AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : On Sun, 02 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. I hereby second both options. The discussion period is extended of two weeks. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Hi! | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. I second these two options as alternatives to the option proposed by Peter Palfrader. Rationale: I like Peter's option, but I think that not having these other two makes the meaning of Further Discussion unclear. -- Besos, Marga signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:18:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto go ahead). I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote Further Disucssion because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not. Yes, but then you have a lot of clashes in the reasons why people are voting Further Discussion. I don't see any particular problem with adding clarifying ballots and I do see the benefit. This said, I still hope that Joerg could send a clarification that what he presented is not yet an official policy, and that he will follow consensus or propose changes through a GR. With this we could avoid the current vote. Full ACK. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
-=| Lucas Nussbaum, Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 03:22:05PM +0100 |=- I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. Both options seconded. -- damJabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
On Sun Nov 02 15:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. Seconded | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. Seconded -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:04:05AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote Further Disucssion because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not. Yes, but then you have a lot of clashes in the reasons why people are voting Further Discussion. I don't see any particular problem with adding clarifying ballots and I do see the benefit. On the other hand, each new option adds its own possibilities of misinterpretation (although the options proposed by Lucas are quite clear). By the way, if Further discussion is misinterpretable, how about None of the above instead ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 03:22:05PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. I hereby second both options. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Hi, I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. | Option: Ask the DAM to postpone the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status, until there | is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should | be implemented. and: | Option: Ask the DAM to implement the changes | | The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks | the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes | described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status. Rationale: -- I don't think that we should include general statements about half-related topics in the GR. This would cause people to scratch their heads, and decide that they don't want to vote for something that makes them say something they don't want to say. In particular: + I don't take position on the quality of the proposal. + I don't want to explicitely thank Joerg in the GR, because, depending on who reads the GR, it might sound sincere, bitter or sarcastic. + I don't want to generally state that signifiant changes must go through a vote first (or anything similar), because people who might agree in this particular case might disagree in the general case. Also, defining signifiant changes is not easy. I don't think that we need to explicitely suspend the decisions (ie, make the formulation binding for the DAMs). I personally trust the DAMs for not going on with those changes if there's a GR to decide if they should be implemented or not. And Peter Palfrader's proposal isn't binding either. I know that Option 2 is close from the current wording of the GR, as proposed by Peter Palfrader. However, Condorcet is clone-proof, so having two similar options on the ballot is not a problem. Also, some people have expressed disagreement about some of the statements made in the GR. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I hereby propose those two alternate options and am asking for seconds. To be very blunt and direct: I think your a teensy, weeny bit late with this. We're currently already working on an alternate proposal. And that one has gotten a fairly big number of seconds. I really do not think that adding new proposals adds something to the issue under discussion. The main question is: does the project think DAM should be allowed to start implementing the proposal posted to d-d-a, or should the project as a whole decide on the future direction of the NM process and related processes. IMO that issue is addressed adequately in the open GR. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
On 02/11/08 at 22:34 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: The main question is: does the project think DAM should be allowed to start implementing the proposal posted to d-d-a, or should the project as a whole decide on the future direction of the NM process and related processes. IMO that issue is addressed adequately in the open GR. I agree with your statement of the main question. But I'm uncomfortable voting for a proposal that also says that we thank Joerg (I'm not sure if this was originally intended as being sarcastic or sincere, but it can be read both ways) or that says something about the quality of the proposal that was made by Joerg. Several people have raised the same concerns. I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto go ahead). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds - DAM decisions
Le Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 10:34:14PM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit : The main question is: does the project think DAM should be allowed to start implementing the proposal posted to d-d-a, or should the project as a whole decide on the future direction of the NM process and related processes. IMO that issue is addressed adequately in the open GR. Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:18:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto go ahead). Hi all, I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote Further Disucssion because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not. At the moment, only two persons asked for an option that clearly invites to Joerg to go ahead, and they did not get seconds. If this GR would be rejected, I dont't think that one can speak for the silent majority and interpret their votes in one or the other direction. This said, I still hope that Joerg could send a clarification that what he presented is not yet an official policy, and that he will follow consensus or propose changes through a GR. With this we could avoid the current vote. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
