Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Which issues would those be, then? I've posted lists in the past, such as http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html It is still a current problem. In No.2, aj decided to pay developers outside the project's control by calling for donations to fund debian release managers instead of improving dunc-tank, and there are no published measures or methods for this experiment on our project AFAICT. It is a non-design. No.3 already has a Discussion Is Over - maybe it won't be so, but what a way to consider something! Has there been a controversial issue where aj has sought consensus instead of taking it to the brink? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Which issues would those be, then? I've posted lists in the past, such as http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation 4. Aj's handling of the non-free firmware vote. Aj asked me to hold my call for vote on frederik's proposal, and asked that we come up with a 'consensual' proposal. he then claims Manoj's proposal is consensual, while not only it is clear it is not, and it is contrary to the will of the kernel team. He then let's Manoj manipulate the vote to get his pet resolution voted and avoid having the better 'consensual' resolution, leaving the whole issue a complete mess, and forcing the RMs to release an interpretation of the vote, which is at odds with what was actually voted on. In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html It is still a current problem. Well, the original mediation was a joke, and aj's inability to mediate, or to apoint someone capable of actually understanding what a mediation is about, is what left us with this mess. But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that frans would leave the d-i team, and we would be left without a d-i release manager, but even then, this only proves that the mediation failed completely. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess. Not really. Messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in the long term. But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...] I don't see how guessing others' views helps here. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess. Not really. Messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in the long term. Well, yes, the idea of the mediation was to solve the issue, not let it stay open forever, and hope it would go away. I have tried to do my best, but Frans is simply not making any effort, and since he has all the power and satisfaction, why should he ? Still, we can both agree But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...] I don't see how guessing others' views helps here. Well, given that the main complaint seems to be that frans did feel that i was not respectful enough (private communication, so no mail archive), and others have hinted that the release of etch was more important than solving this (again private irc exchange), i really don't know what else to guess. It would have helped if the mediation had involved some clear listing of the actual grieves, instead of giving all the reason to frans as it did. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Not always. It depends on the strength of views and actions of the 20. If they'll stand aside, then it is. If they object well, it isn't. Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. A few years ago, I would have probably agreed with that. Sadly, it doesn't work. If your decision annoys the 20 so much that they will attack the outcome, you've made a bad decision. Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? As I understood it, well-reasoned objections - even from a minority - can outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any definition. Probably, but I doubt it will be the last if this DPL continues. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. A few years ago, I would have probably agreed with that. Sadly, it doesn't work. If your decision annoys the 20 so much that they will attack the outcome, you've made a bad decision. Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. It's possible that you've made a bad decision. However, you've made a decision with a consensus behind it, regardless of how vehement the 20% is, in my opinion. Again, I've seen this happen time and time again in the IETF, up to and including sparking endless formal protests from the people who were in the 20%, and it's still considered a consensus decision. My experience in the IETF tells me that sometimes this is the only way that you'll ever arrive at any decision if the group is large enough. I've seen IETF working groups where the only alternatives to doing something that angered a vocal minority would have been to release a standard that the majority thought was bad or to give up entirely. We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). As I understood it, well-reasoned objections - even from a minority - can outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. Yes, but that's *not* because of the consensus process. That's because of the technical review process, which is an entirely orthogonal metric. It's possible for a consensus to be technically wrong, which is why the IETF applies both a consensus process and expert review. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. One of the problems with applying a reasoned objection metric in practice is that one person's reasoned objection is another person's obdurate refusal to listen to reason. Plus, again speaking from my experience with the IETF, sometimes the rough part of the rough consensus *is* reasonable and there's simply an irreconcilable difference within the working group, with a strong majority in one direction and a reasoned minority in another. In that situation, one has to weigh the merits of releasing the document anyway or giving up. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.31.0533 +0100]: Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Ah, if this is the misunderstanding: the infamous 80/20 rule (Pareto's principle) in this case meant: 20% of the participants of the discusionss make 80% of the noise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems aus der kriegsschule des lebens - was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich härter. - friedrich nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Please go read my post again. I said a *minority* is making *most* of the noise. That has nothing to do with the DPL. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! I neither said disruption nor trouble. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems my experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Please go read my post again. I said a *minority* is making *most* of the noise. That has nothing to do with the DPL. I have reread the post. I still claim that if for every 20 posting, there are 80 more, then any discontent posted *may* signify a much larger group of discontents. Unless there's some extra knowledge about how the visible 20 relates to the hidden 80, Pareto tells one little about the views of the 100. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! I neither said disruption nor trouble. Indeed, you in particular wrote shake up and waste of time. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Personally, I think the RFC 3160 view of 'rough consensus, meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree' would be good enough. What is a very large majority these days? I suspect it should be larger than the margins that the DPL got in recent votes (3 to 1 and 5.77 to 1, if I've worked them out right). In general, it wouldn't be a practical requirement, but it's practical for most DPL powers. It's one of a few things which stop DPLs having absolute power. If the DPL cannot find a consensus, then there are other methods to reach a decision and the DPL has simplified access to some of them. [...] acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). Can someone point me to one, please? www.ietf.org seems to have replaced its web search with google, which just returns noise when I try to find one, and I didn't find a decent index to the drums archive (when looking into the release situation of 2822). [...] One of the problems with applying a reasoned objection metric in practice is that one person's reasoned objection is another person's obdurate refusal to listen to reason. I agree, but I've not seen much attempt to discuss any objections lately, like http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00234.html or http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00026.html - the current approach seems to be to post self-contradicting messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00027.html or use a technical measure like http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00238.html and declare Discussion Is Over. If one won't talk, of course no-one listens. Plus, again speaking from my experience with the IETF, sometimes the rough part of the rough consensus *is* reasonable and there's simply an irreconcilable difference within the working group, with a strong majority in one direction and a reasoned minority in another. In that situation, one has to weigh the merits of releasing the document anyway or giving up. That's the sort of time I meant when I wrote Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. I don't mean that the decision is evil or wrong necessarily, just that it's not a good strong decision. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. Which issues would those be, then? If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. So, we have one issue that aj was forced to take action on, one issue that he acted on exactly as the constitution states, and one that IMO did require fast action, and I'd say that the consensus on policy changes is that no one developer should be able to make normative changes without peer review. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Personally, I think the RFC 3160 view of 'rough consensus, meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree' would be good enough. What is a very large majority these days? I suspect it should be larger than the margins that the DPL got in recent votes (3 to 1 and 5.77 to 1, if I've worked them out right). Ah, okay, I think we can agree on that. If we're just arguing over what level of supermajority makes a consensus, I think we're just debating practical application and not really the underlying principle. In general, it wouldn't be a practical requirement, but it's practical for most DPL powers. It's one of a few things which stop DPLs having absolute power. If the DPL cannot find a consensus, then there are other methods to reach a decision and the DPL has simplified access to some of them. True. Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). Can someone point me to one, please? www.ietf.org seems to have replaced its web search with google, which just returns noise when I try to find one, and I didn't find a decent index to the drums archive (when looking into the release situation of 2822). Unfortunately, I can't, since I'm speaking from personal memory and didn't retain URLs. :/ We've had several rough consensus calls recently in USEFOR, and there was one major one with article numbers in the now-published NNTP standard. That's the sort of time I meant when I wrote Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. I don't mean that the decision is evil or wrong necessarily, just that it's not a good strong decision. Ah, okay. I understand, then, I think. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]: Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. A look back over the discussions makes for interesting reading: different issues have very different people unhappy with the DPL. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any definition. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Given that there's no easy way to get at the arguments for an against this vote, other than wading through hundreds of -vote mails, I cannot cast a vote. I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot suggests: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. -- .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. however, this is not necessarily a good idea. it is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- rfc 1925 signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it wasn't accepted. Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hear hear. Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hey, you should have seconded my No more GRs until the etch release proposal weeks ago :) I was helding exactly the same argumentation as you are having now, but i was the laughing stock of everyone, including you back then. You won't probably not read this, since i believe you blacklisted me or something, so ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot suggests: It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL decision then a snap vote is held to decide if the decision should stand until the vote proper is run (section 4.2.4). Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Especially in this case, where it looks like the differences will be resolved before we ever get to a vote. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can see is that is available from the web archives. I can not find anything about this, so personally I think it is something strange happening. My questions are: * What have the project leader decided? (if anything) http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00233.html What delegations has been withdrawed? Why? * Why can't I find anything on debian-vote or the Debian vote pages? http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c874pto4b6q.fsf%40glaurung.internal.golden%2dgryphon.com%3e Everything _I_ write here can go public. [...] Why did you write to -private then? Redirecting to -vote by setting MFT. The respective thread with pointers starts here: http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c20061025194042.GA11221%40wuertele.net%3e cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Hi Thanks for pointing me to information about this vote. I obviously missed some parts of the debian-vote list, as I thought that newest was listed first. On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can see is that is available from the web archives. I can not find anything about this, so personally I think it is something strange happening. My questions are: * What have the project leader decided? (if anything) http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00233.html Thanks. What delegations has been withdrawed? Why? * Why can't I find anything on debian-vote or the Debian vote pages? http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c874pto4b6q.fsf%40glaurung.internal.golden%2dgryphon.com%3e Ok, goog do know. Everything _I_ write here can go public. [...] Why did you write to -private then? Redirecting to -vote by setting MFT. Because it was a reply to that list. The respective thread with pointers starts here: http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c20061025194042.GA11221%40wuertele.net%3e Thanks a lot. Regards, // Ola cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- --- Ola Lundqvist systemkonsult --- M Sc in IT Engineering / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37\ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD| | http://opalsys.net/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1211 +0100]: Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hey, you should have seconded my No more GRs until the etch release proposal weeks ago :) I was helding exactly the same argumentation as you are having now, but i was the laughing stock of everyone, including you back then. I think you failed to catch the irony. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 2) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]: I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it wasn't accepted. 0/0 was not accepted. Joey (Hess), was blank/blank allowed? Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hear hear. Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems i doubt larry wall ever uses strict. -- frederick heckel signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. You can basicly rank those 2 options the same using either: -- 11 22 The rest should get rejected. But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 1) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. This vote doesn't even have an quorum, according to the constitution. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. As far as I know, in our voting system each option needs to reach a quorum over the default option to be considered. The total number of votes doesn't matter. If you vote equal or lower than the default option, it doesn't add to the quorum. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1736 +0100]: In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. This vote doesn't even have an quorum, according to the constitution. Thanks for pointing this out; I have not memorised the constitution, and better things to do these days than to wade through thousands of mails about this stuff, or to analyse legal documents. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. As far as I know, in our voting system each option needs to reach a quorum over the default option to be considered. The total number of votes doesn't matter. If you vote equal or lower than the default option, it doesn't add to the quorum. So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options equal? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 2) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:57:46 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. You are wrong :). This is true for general use of the quorum, but not how Debian works. ,[ § A.6.2 ] | 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other than |the default option which do not receive at least R votes ranking |that option above the default option are dropped from |consideration. ` In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. No, you will not. manoj -- ... the heat come 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:41:26 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options equal? Yes, your name is recorded as someone who voted. Has no effect on quorum or the outcome, though. manoj -- QOTD: I haven't come far enough, and don't call me baby. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Where's the vote.debian.org page? -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:08:05 +0200, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Where's the vote.debian.org page? It shall be put up when someone has time for it. The proposers have not yet provided the wml for the vote page, nor their idea of the ballot; I have a monday deadline, and the vote.d.o page is not that high on my list of things to do. Remember, this mailing list is the authoritative repository of information about votes; the vote.d.o pages are a convenience offered on a best effort basis. manoj -- Conceit causes more conversation than wit. LaRouchefoucauld Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I'd like to note that since this vote does not offer a you're all insane and wasting my time crossposting this to debian-devel-announce, I won't be voting on it. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
