Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution: A.5. Expiry If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn. I'm just not sure when that 4 weeks start. The discussion period is now over, so I could do it 4 weeks from now. I could also interprete it to start from the last discussion on the list which seems to be March 27. I don't think the Expiry clause deals with the minimum discussion period, but actual discussion (note the wording discussed). Thus, the four week period starts with the last actual -vote post on the subject matter, in this case currently March 27. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. [...] I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting. (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds) So according to the vote.d.o page, the minimum discussion period's done and a vote could be called for anytime... But there seems to only be 9 seconds for the proposals to require Q/2Q seconds, which is presumably 6 or 21 less than would indicate they're actually feasible... Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. [...] I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting. (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds) So according to the vote.d.o page, the minimum discussion period's done and a vote could be called for anytime... But there seems to only be 9 seconds for the proposals to require Q/2Q seconds, which is presumably 6 or 21 less than would indicate they're actually feasible... I think they would actually be 6 / 22 short. Q being 15.91 makes 2Q 31.82. So floor(Q) is 15, floor(2Q) is 31. Don suggested wording to change it to 2*floor(Q), but I think nobody commented on that. I'm not sure if someone who seconded one of the first two options would like to call for vote because they didn't reach number of seconds they would like to see. I can only suggest them to try and get more seconds. And I see no reason why someone who seconded the 3rd option would need to call for vote. Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution: A.5. Expiry If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn. I'm just not sure when that 4 weeks start. The discussion period is now over, so I could do it 4 weeks from now. I could also interprete it to start from the last discussion on the list which seems to be March 27. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is minimum support for an opinion. It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text. Are you promoting the practice of voting by I haven't got a clue what this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote for that here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder rather than facilitating it. IMHO the only thing that's important is _that_ a proposal got sufficient seconds, not _who_ seconded it. (Of course the secretary should be able to show this, but that's covered.) However, there are variations possible. For example: - during the period before the vote opens: register all seconds, but only publish whether or not the number required has been reached; - when the vote is opened: list the complete list of seconders as now. That would still help get cleaner discussion threads and reduces any skewing of the vote by a group of DDs boosting a particular option by all sending in their seconds at that point. Personally I really do find otherwise empty seconds on the list distracting. I'd much rather see people actually contributing to the discussion by explaining their rationale and keep the seconds separate. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Charles Plessy wrote: Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit : Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest number of seconds win? That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I recommend to the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to get three times the numbers of seconds compared to the status quo amendment, that I hereby second. OTOH, getting loads (say 30) seconds for _this_ option could be construed as an argument *for* the change proposed by Joerg, which would be rather counterproductive :-P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Are you promoting the practice of voting by I haven't got a clue what this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote for that here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder rather than facilitating it. I'm saying it happens, and I'd rather not have a vote go the wrong way because the only names the voters recognized were on the wrong side of the issue. :P -- 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: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END I second this. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END I hereby second this amendment. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - jbla...@debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 pgp0ZjDzTrwsh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END I second this. Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was enhanced with s/Enhance/Change/. This also - the current GR title has an unfortunate air of not being entirely neutral. Matthew -- At least you know where you are with Microsoft. True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle. http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Not that it makes much difference to 'further discussion', but: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END I second this proposal. I have felt more positive about the whole idea of increasing sponsorship requirements in the past, but as time has gone on, I now feel that it does not really make much sense anymore. The main argument for increasing the sponsorship requirement seems to be there is too much politics in Debian, so let's make it harder to start a vote. That argument is flawed, for multiple reasons: - Making it harder to vote isn't going to change people's opinions on controversial subjects. If a person feels that his opinion is in line with the project's core ideals, there are other people who feel differently, but not enough people who care enough to second a vote on the subject, then this will *not* cause them to stop talking about the subject. Me, I prefer to have a vote on a subject (so that a consensus is known, even if not necessarily liked by everyone) rather than have to listen to people talking about the same subject over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm quite sure most people in the project agree on that bit, since we've kicked people out for precisely that reason. - Like it or not, in some regards Debian actually *is* a political organization. We've come up with a number of documents that have helped shape the Open Source/Free Software landscape, such as the DFSG/Open Source definition, our Social Contract (which Gentoo based theirs on[1]); we've taken a position on matters such as the GFDL and the Mozilla trademark policy which were not always in line with the rest of the FLOSS world, but which have since come to be accepted by many people unrelated to Debian. Ignoring that fact because we don't like voting as much as we like hacking isn't going to change it, nor make it go away. - There is no proof that any change in sponsorship requirements is going to actually improve things. I find this kind of thing to be extremely dangerous; it has the potential to ruin our entire GR procedure (if it does turn out to be too high a number in practice) for a stated benefit that it may even fail to produce. Additionally, there is the point of amendments; while it could perhaps be a good thing to discourage starting the GR procedure, the same most certainly is not true for amendments. If a vote has been taken, reverting it is going to be almost impossible[2]; so it had better be clear and complete to start with. Making it harder to propose amendments is counter to that goal. A suggestion was made in the thread that would increase the seconders requirement to start a vote, but that would not increase the requirement for amendments. This, I believe, will also not work. It requires us to make a clear distinction between a 'GR proposal' and an 'amendment'. Currently, they're mostly the same thing. If we make it clearly separate things, where it would be easier to do an amendment than it is to do a vote, that would make it attractive to craft what is really a GR proposal in such a way that it could be seen as an amendment to an already-existing vote. If the text of a proposed amendment only tangentially relates to the original text which it claims to amend, is it then still an amendment or should it be considered a vote in its own right? That doesn't even have to be done on purpose; sometimes you could think in good faith that a particular statement is related to an already-existing vote, but then find that you're alone with that opinion. What's going to have to be done with that? These may seem trivial questions for now, but they're going to be very hard questions to answer once we're actually talking about a proposed vote and emotions are running high. Moreover, I find that the Debian GR procedure actually is a great way to build consensus. The GFDL debate is an excellent example of that; it took us two votes (if you don't count 2004_004) and several years, but we've gone from a general feeling of The GFDL is from GNU, so it must be free to a stated and clear consensus of The GFDL
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:25:34PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END I second this. Please sign the message. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting. (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds) Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lucas Nussbaum writes ([Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring): I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two keep things as is options on the ballot). I hereby second Lucas's amendment. Ian. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBScq0xsMWjroj9a3bAQLo7gP+IVG9v0C5Nh4SR9+/9NnZHqmndk+V5ocZ H5WFM0TC3yjl2tCVHxEMCvw6IWJS4kKL4WwCDaH/I9XJ4bNAa8V/Fg3E82Bbdzrh 68TUr8urO7kUZwh5ZFs5wOLUZKlqTaAPKe0wTLU6GSThptHix9yLA23F4E6dxlGd c/Dk1EwwDxM= =kIlY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting. (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds) It's now at: 2Q: 9 Q: 7 Keep current: 7 I've commited 9/7/5 a few hours ago, but there is a delay before the pages get regenerated. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26:59AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting. (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds) It's now at: 2Q: 9 Q: 7 Keep current: 7 To be complete, there is also: - Bill Allombert's simular proposal with 1 second. - MJ Ray's proposal about the expiry-on-failure with 1 second - Neil McGovern's s/K/Q/ with 1 second Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. Since this amendment is much cleaner and appears to have more support, I will gladly rescind mine. I would like to thanks Lucas for his effort. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Seconded! I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already. Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest number of seconds win [1]? /me also watches Kurt scrambling to keep up with the amendmends, seconds and rescinds and would like to note that he seems to be doing an excellent job, but worries that he might run out of steam a bit at some point :-) Cheers, FJP [1] That in itself is IMO an argument against requiring too many seconds, aside from the fact that it tends to reduce the readability of the actual discussion, especially when it is read from the archives later by people not following it as it happens. Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is minimum support for an opinion. It might be a good idea to implement a different mechanism (more like the way the vote itself is done) to gather seconds. One that automatically ignores any superfluous seconds after the required number has been reached. That would make for a cleaner separation between discussion and seconding. It would require the secretary to accept a proposed amendmend and open it for seconding by assigning an identifier. That would also allow for a basic quality check before seconds are received. Something like mail -s Second: GR X amendmend Y seco...@vote.debian.org With confirmation mail (including longer description) and option to retract of course. /end-too-long-note -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is minimum support for an opinion. It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text. -- 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: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit : Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest number of seconds win? That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I recommend to the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to get three times the numbers of seconds compared to the status quo amendment, that I hereby second. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Have a nice day -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes: Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest number of seconds win [1]? One of the primary objections to this proposal is that it will be too hard to get the new required number of seconds. It seems quite reasonable to put that objection to the test. :) -- 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: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Ben Finney wrote: A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the person prefers that option to appear on the ballot. Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence with Fun! to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on, you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you: ! Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is ! minimum support for an opinion. Though on reflection maybe low-level is not the term I was looking for there. I meant to say basic or rough. And minimum should maybe have been minimal. Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my English (I have a nice 1700 page Collins Cobuild here; should keep me occupied for a couple of hours). Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes: Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence with Fun! to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on, you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you […] Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my English (I have a nice 1700 page Collins Cobuild here; should keep me occupied for a couple of hours). Your English is so good that I thought your interjection of “Fun!” was deliberate sarcasm, with the rest being serious :-) -- \ “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses | `\over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and | _o__)its speaker a raving lunatic.” —Dresden James | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:17:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text. On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:28:09PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: it's not a statement that the person prefers that option above all others; For me, it's a statement as explained by Steve Langasek. -- I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves. Henry Kissinger on Chile prior to the overthrow and violent death of Salvador Allende. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Seconded. This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral keep things as is option. Thanks Lucas. Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was enhanced with s/Enhance/Change/. Agreed. And the same for the ballot options proposed in the initial mail. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Since nobody sponsored it yet, I'm amending it to fix: s/arised/arisen/ s/those years/the years/ PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over the years, some problems have arisen during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Maybe we should make it mandatory to ask for review from a native speaker before submitting a GR or an amendment? :-) This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral keep things as is option. I believe that we need to provide basic information about why we are voting this, hence the first paragraph, which, I hope, is vague enough (might, etc) not to prevent anyone from sponsoring or voting for this option. I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two keep things as is options on the ballot). Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was enhanced with s/Enhance/Change/. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Since nobody sponsored it yet, Actually, someone did, but: I'm amending it to fix: s/arised/arisen/ s/those years/the years/ Under A.1.6, you can fix spelling and grammar without having to re-solicit seconds. -- 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: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution entitled Enhance requirements for General resolutions. PROPOSAL START = General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. = PROPOSAL END Since nobody sponsored it yet, I'm amending it to fix: s/arised/arisen/ s/those years/the years/ The constitution even covers such changes: A.1.: 6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is not restarted. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
