Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

MJ Ray writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I support Ian. I do not second yet because I think the secretary has
> ruled it out of order.

My procedural proposal is withdrawn, because the condition for doing
so (what is now H appearing on the ballot) has been met.  So thanks
for your support but we can probably let this rest now.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[MJ Ray]

2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman :
> And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
> wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
> ways.

This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose.

I support Ian. I do not second yet because I think the secretary has ruled it 
out of order.

I am concerned that no allowance seems to be made for secretary overlooking an 
email from Ian.

> This sort of thing is expensive no matter how you handle it. [...]

Yes and I agree with the earlier comment that a repeat soon will be very 
expensive and would prioritise avoiding that.

> I will be shocked if I find that a significant number of people
> rank another option between G+D and D.

If DPLs knew all opinions, we would not need GRs.

-- 

MJR - please excuse brevity because this was sent while mobile

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Sam Hartman]

> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield  writes:

Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (

The CFV was not posted to punish anyone.  The CFV was posted because I
believe (and continue to believe) we had reached a point of diminishing
returns.

These discussions do have real costs.
Ian speaks of how having a compressed timeline forces people to
rearrange their schedules.

There are also constant costs for the entire timeline for which
something like this is open.  You need to have people prepared to jump
in and facilitate discussions.
Many people feel they need to follow closely because the first who
respond to new ideas have significant influence over everyone's thought
process on those ideas.

And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
ways.

This sort of thing is expensive no matter how you handle it.
And yes, this last week, particularly this last few days has been
dragging on.

I will be shocked if I  find that a significant number of people
rank another option between G+D and D.

I did contact the most active member of the community team.  They made
it clear that this conversation was too confrontational and they didn't
have emotional bandwidth for that.
No, I do not believe the community team was an effective option.
I did not contact the community team as a unit in this instance.  I have
found they are too slow for what we need now when contacted as a team
rather than as individuals.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Ian Jackson writes ("Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Sam has decided to cut short this process.  We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago.  This is very short.

I still think the timeline is too abbreviated but we are where we
are.

> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:

I hereby *conditionally* withdraw this proposal.  If, and only, if, my
recently drafted G+D option is accepted onto the ballot, I withdraw
this proposal.

Please would people who seconded my G+D option also formally second
this procedural GR.  This will make it more likely that G+D will
actually appear on the ballot.

Unfortunately under the circumstances I think the potential G+E is
going to be lost and also Guillem may not have a proper chance to
add text to his G as he wishes to.

Ian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFUBAEBCAA+FiEEVZrkbC1rbTJl58uh4+M5I0i1DTkFAl3o9eUgHGlqYWNrc29u
QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQ4+M5I0i1DTlBoggApVJTrBAy8g2d
EZKxKnv3err3d+QUwUPXw581SxWDV2U12RvCnVDQaUU/MBZ/8xygYXxiB130/3kJ
baYoh6VdImlzOkMIBxusKJ9vBf02PV/lJpqmN9R06bGtZRrTTl/EqH3QWkLxX/K6
tqwGT2Rd+srXb6sbWpOc8ZRm6ynzdM9kHazZxVHH/com4KWutgWiBo7RNNvzM0yM
BV5njXElceeRHdqnPBIdx+Bt7zcN1GZ9CH7M2aLiah7PoRAXx6CMsnlzBfqTt1yw
4OdW72n4Gi4aueMjTIEZbnh1a0zbEvj1rSeYrKJ6GYH4QmepiBLDJzk7NNBOvuj4
bBs27LRsiw==
=qdKt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> > Ian, please don't.
> 
> Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
> mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this proposal by
> Ian to proceed, the "reasoning" paragraph that followed is not rightly
> framed. I am somewhat overburnt lately, and while I have been
> struggling to follow discussions (this is the first message I have
> sent), have mostly failed to properly do so.

This message is going to be a bit personal; I was going to send it to
Gunnar privately but I decided to share it.

Gunnar, I don't think you have anything to apologise for.
And yes this is all very draining.

Thanks for giving me your opinion.  I can see why you wrote what you
did.  And while I'm afraid I don't agree with you, I do want to say
that your message, while you did clearly and frankly disagree with me,
was *not* draining for me.

Obviously from my point of view I would prefer it if you had agreed
with me but I found your message very reasonable.

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ansgar]

Michael Lustfield writes:
> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on poor behavior by
> some individuals instead of being based on the active efforts of those trying 
> to
> improve the end result (following the vote). I do not believe the latter 
> should
> be punished for behavior of the former.

These are not disjoint groups, see the "call for vote" message.

> There are more appropriate ways to
> handle those problems. If you need help with that, I would encourage you to
> contact the Community Team.

And then? The Community Team has been contacted several times for
similar reasons already; it doesn't always result in individuals
changing their behavior (again, see the "call for vote" message).

Maybe just try to see it as following clause 11 of proposal D. ;-)

Ansgar

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Gunnar Wolf]

Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> Ian, please don't.

Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this proposal by
Ian to proceed, the "reasoning" paragraph that followed is not rightly
framed. I am somewhat overburnt lately, and while I have been
struggling to follow discussions (this is the first message I have
sent), have mostly failed to properly do so.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Michael Lustfield]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:21:20 -0500
Louis-Philippe Véronneau  wrote:

> [...]
> So far I've stayed away from writing on the list, since I think it has
> been very verbose and I find that tiresome.
> 
> I'm tired of this GR already and in my heart, I wish I could just vote
> and be done with it.
> 
> Yet, I have to agree with folks who say this whole thing has moved very
> quickly. I salute Sam for trying to push important issues ahead, but I
> fear we could all benefit from a vote in January.
> 
> I'm not sure Ian's GR proposal really helps and I don't see any other
> solution than Sam agreeing to postpone the vote.
> 
> Sam, please consider postponing the vote on the init GR after January,
> even though it might push back other issues (like the whole git ordeal).

I hate "me too" posts, but... I second everything said here.

I support Ian's efforts to come up with a "universal" option to vote for that
supports the nature of our "universal" operating system, especially because it
seems to merge the best of the other options in a way that I think most can
agree with. If things were being dragged out, that would be one thing, but
that's not the case.

I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on poor behavior by
some individuals instead of being based on the active efforts of those trying to
improve the end result (following the vote). I do not believe the latter should
be punished for behavior of the former. There are more appropriate ways to
handle those problems. If you need help with that, I would encourage you to
contact the Community Team.

-- 
Michael Lustfield


pgpdgeNVzx_Yl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau]

On 19-12-03 11 h 15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal.  I need a few more days to do this.  (Guillem's proposal has
> IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance.  I hope we
> can make a version which combines Guillem's framing with some
> appropriate specific guidance, perhaps taken from one of the other
> proposals.)
> 
> Sam has decided to cut short this process.  We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago.  This is very short.
> 
> I think we can use the constitutional process to delay this, to make
> sure the options on this important ballot reflect the range of views
> within the project, so people can vote for options that accurately
> reflect their opinions.
> 
> We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> reasonably points out is desirable.  Russ suggested a voting period
> starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible [2],
> which probably means a call for votes the previous day.
> 
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> 
>  Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> 
>  1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
> Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)
> 
>  2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems GR
> is overturned.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)
> 
>  3. Additionally, if the DPL's decision to call for a vote is enabled
> by a decision by the DPL to vary the minimum discussion period:
> the DPL's decision to vary the minimum discussion period is
> overturned.
> 
>  4. If the decision to call for a vote cannot be overturned via
> Constitution 4.1(3), the DPL's decision(s) to propose all the
> DPL's options on the ballot(s) is overturned.  We believe the
> effect of this is to either stop the process so that it must be
> restarted, or to drop the DPL's options from the ballot so that
> the DPL no longer has standing to call for a vote.  (We would
> prefer the latter, if we can't have what we want in (1) and (2),
> above.)
> 
>  5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
> are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
> as applicable.)
> 
>  6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
>   (i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
>   (ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
>to our (1), above; and
>   (ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
>for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
> 
> I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
> Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> [1] Russ's mail about timing
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/11/msg00184.html
>

So far I've stayed away from writing on the list, since I think it has
been very verbose and I find that tiresome.

I'm tired of this GR already and in my heart, I wish I could just vote
and be done with it.

Yet, I have to agree with folks who say this whole thing has moved very
quickly. I salute Sam for trying to push important issues ahead, but I
fear we could all benefit from a vote in January.

I'm not sure Ian's GR proposal really helps and I don't see any other
solution than Sam agreeing to postpone the vote.

Sam, please consider postponing the vote on the init GR after January,
even though it might push back other issues (like the whole git ordeal).

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   po...@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:24:36PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Gerardo Ballabio  writes:
> 
> > Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> > before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> > and will agree to whatever formal step is required to get it in.
> 
> It would be helpful if Sam and/or Kurt would confirm or deny this; I am
> not as confident as you.

I don't see any stept we can take.


Kurt

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Matthias Klumpp]

Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Vernon :
>
> Russ Allbery  writes:
>
> > Jonas Smedegaard  writes:
> >> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>
> I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
> from Sam by now.
>
> >>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
> >>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
> >>> deep into this discussion?
> >
> >> Evidently someone truly believes there is need for another round.
> >
> > I probably didn't express this well enough, but the reason why I was using
> > the phrasing that I did was to ask Ian and Matthew to think about whether
> > the work that they were planning on doing is as important as it seemed at
> > first glance.
>
> I think it plausibly might result in improvements either to that
> particular resolution (in the form of some concrete proposals to go with
> the statement of principles) or to a related resolution (in the form of
> tying some persuasive statement of principles to an extant set of
> concrete proposals).
>
> Also, I think in the circumstances its important that everyone gets a
> reasonable opportunity to revise their proposals, and that the GR is
> clearly a fair process. The DPL's recent actions have given a number of
> people disquiet in that regard.

While I really don't know whether they way things were handled were
actually the best way possible (both sides have pretty good reasons),
I do think it is definitely worth noting that the process was actually
fair. Sam has been transparent from the start on how he wants to
handle the discussion period length and also sent and email announcing
his intent to call for vote very soon - and people could have objected
to that strongly a long time ago. In addition, his initial ballot
options were also being prepared for a while, so people knew the GR
was coming. So, I am definitely sure that the process was fair, as it
was pretty transparent and also the same conditions applied to
everyone.
Whether it was actually good though to not wait a bit longer in this
particular instant, especially as discussion definitely didn't die
down yet, is something I am not so sure about. There are good
arguments for not dragging the discussion on for longer than it needs
to, but on the other hand stopping an option from being refined (even
just by accident) feels wrong too.

I wonder whether refinements, if they are not too major, could still
be incorporated before voting starts on the weekend.

Cheers,
Matthias

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Matthew Vernon]

Gerardo Ballabio  writes:

> Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> and will agree to whatever formal step is required to get it in.

It would be helpful if Sam and/or Kurt would confirm or deny this; I am
not as confident as you.

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Matthew Vernon]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Jonas Smedegaard  writes:
>> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)

I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
from Sam by now.

>>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
>>> deep into this discussion?
>
>> Evidently someone truly believes there is need for another round.
>
> I probably didn't express this well enough, but the reason why I was using
> the phrasing that I did was to ask Ian and Matthew to think about whether
> the work that they were planning on doing is as important as it seemed at
> first glance.

I think it plausibly might result in improvements either to that
particular resolution (in the form of some concrete proposals to go with
the statement of principles) or to a related resolution (in the form of
tying some persuasive statement of principles to an extant set of
concrete proposals).

Also, I think in the circumstances its important that everyone gets a
reasonable opportunity to revise their proposals, and that the GR is
clearly a fair process. The DPL's recent actions have given a number of
people disquiet in that regard.

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Matthew Vernon]

Gerardo Ballabio  writes:

> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>>Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)
>
> Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that he
> plans to start the vote on the 7th?

I think so - because it extends the time window for people to submit
further amendments.

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)

Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that he
plans to start the vote on the 7th?

Gerardo

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2019/12/04 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into question the 
> legitimacy of the process.
> 
> I think you are wrong here.  How can one know where to rank option G when 
> it's 
> clearly incomplete.  I don't know if I like it or not.  Let's finish the work 
> on getting the ballot right and then vote.

Absolutely, losing another day to get a proposal right is a very small
price to pay in the grand scheme of things, where rushing it creates the
risk of having to repeat it all again in the future.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Reuben]

please stop sending me emails…. 








> On 04 Dec 2019, at 09:22, Scott Kitterman  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
>> that the vote is called to early.
>> 
>> They can vote FD above other options.
>> And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
>> would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome of the vote, but I do have a 
> strong opinion about this.
> 
> I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into question the 
> legitimacy of the process.
> 
> I think you are wrong here.  How can one know where to rank option G when 
> it's 
> clearly incomplete.  I don't know if I like it or not.  Let's finish the work 
> on getting the ballot right and then vote.
> 
> If you think this discussion has been fun, consider the fun of doing it over 
> again next year with accusations of DPL bad faith thrown in.
> 
> Please wait.
> 
> Scott K

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Thomas Goirand]

On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, stating
> the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the
> observed fact that it started no less than five years ago.

Gunnar,

I very much disagree with this view.

On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And if something is missing, as others
> have stated, either a high rank for FD or a new GR following this one
> can be the next possible action.

Which would better be avoided. That'd be really bad compared to a few
more days delay to have a correct GR to begin with.

Ian, I support you, I don't think we need to rush. Even if this vote was
postponed until January, it's my view that it would be fine (but I
understand others who think differently).

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
> that the vote is called to early.
> 
> They can vote FD above other options.
> And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
> would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.

I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome of the vote, but I do have a 
strong opinion about this.

I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into question the 
legitimacy of the process.

I think you are wrong here.  How can one know where to rank option G when it's 
clearly incomplete.  I don't know if I like it or not.  Let's finish the work 
on getting the ballot right and then vote.

If you think this discussion has been fun, consider the fun of doing it over 
again next year with accusations of DPL bad faith thrown in.

Please wait.

Scott K

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on
> *this* GR has started only a month ago.
> 
> A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a
> ballot that is likely to be so contentions. That we've managed to get
> this far is amazing, but does not negate the fact that people are still
> working on their draft.
> 
> If this option does not make progress in a few days, then yes, you're
> right. But I agree with Ian -- even if I'm unlikely to vote for that
> option -- that allowing it a fair chance to arrive onto the ballot is
> important.
[...] 
> I don't think that waiting a few more days is going to make the sky
> fall. There have been votes that took *far* longer than this one to be
> decided on.
> 
> Historically, we've waited until discussion died before we called for
> vote. It feels wrong to not do the same now, on an issue that is likely
> to be this contentious.

I have to somewhat correct my last mail and agree with Wouter here too.

Even though the discussion partly has become somewhat painful again, it's
important to let people finish drafting their options until they are ready
and then vote. Especially after 5 years.

Some holiday dates (which affect everyone differently anyway, just like
weather) shouldn't influence our voting dates too much.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> [ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]
> 
> Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> > 
> > I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> > proposal.  I need a few more days to do this.  (Guillem's proposal has
> > IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance.  I hope we
> > can make a version which combines Guillem's framing with some
> > appropriate specific guidance, perhaps taken from one of the other
> > proposals.)
> > 
> > Sam has decided to cut short this process.  We started this public
> > discussion less than a month ago.  This is very short.
> > (...)
> 
> Ian, please don't.
> 
> Well, you did. But I must say, I'm not the least thrilled at seeing
> this initiative.
> 
> While I share Sam's impression that the whole discussion has been
> (impressively!) very civil and productive, I do not think further
> delaying will be beneficial to the project. Yes, Guillem's proposal
> arrived quite late in the process, presenting a very different and
> important view. Yes, probably it could be improved. However, stating
> the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the
> observed fact that it started no less than five years ago.

No, that's not true.

The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on
*this* GR has started only a month ago.

A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a
ballot that is likely to be so contentions. That we've managed to get
this far is amazing, but does not negate the fact that people are still
working on their draft.

If this option does not make progress in a few days, then yes, you're
right. But I agree with Ian -- even if I'm unlikely to vote for that
option -- that allowing it a fair chance to arrive onto the ballot is
important.

> We are trying to put closure to it. I think we can improve minutiae
> forever, but will never reach a perfect solution that leaves everybody
> happy.

Perhaps, but the only way to do that is to allow every valid option to
reach the ballot.

I don't think that waiting a few more days is going to make the sky
fall. There have been votes that took *far* longer than this one to be
decided on.

Historically, we've waited until discussion died before we called for
vote. It feels wrong to not do the same now, on an issue that is likely
to be this contentious.

> That's the main reason to hold a GR. The available options
> (Guillem's included) will most probably cover the opinions / feelings
> of basically all developers. And if something is missing, as others
> have stated, either a high rank for FD or a new GR following this one
> can be the next possible action.

So you're saying that instead of extending things for a few days now,
you'd rather see the process started over again, which will take a *lot*
longer than that?

That seems... weird.

-- 
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:40:57PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
> or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
> for a vote.

I (mostly) missed this part busy preparing an event...

> I agree that all the useful options seem to be on the ballot, and I look
> forward to see what comes out. I would prefer that we didn't start
> something that looks like meta-discussing options, and meta-discussing
> whether to meta-discuss options, and so on.
> 
> Nitpicking on the constitutional process like this looks to me like an
> interesting move in some competitive board game. I would prefer to see
> less competition, and more cooperative focus on trying to make Policy
> unstuck while trying to keep pain to a minimum.

   _ 
   _  / |
 _| |_| |
|_   _| |
  |_| |_|

(+1)

IOW, a GR to overturn the GR to delay the GR about the GR is...

then, I also think all the useful options are on the table, but if Ian 
has something to greatly improve option G, the latest of the available options,
very soon, I can see how we can still start voting on the 8th or 10th or 
12th or whatever. Everybody who is interested to vote on this GR, and can
vote, will know about this GR and so either can vote early and enjoy the
holidays or enjoy the holidays, read as much background info as wanted
during/after and before the holidays and then vote. (or whenever this vote ends)


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Russ Allbery]

Jonas Smedegaard  writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)

>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
>> deep into this discussion?

> Evidently someone truly believes there is need for another round.

I probably didn't express this well enough, but the reason why I was using
the phrasing that I did was to ask Ian and Matthew to think about whether
the work that they were planning on doing is as important as it seemed at
first glance.

Maybe they'll think about it some more and conclude that indeed it is and
I'm wrong.  But it's easy to get caught up in a plan and then to feel
frustrated and treated poorly when that plan is derailed, even though
that's not quite the same as being relatively certain that the work was
important and needed to happen as planned.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> Russ, could you chime in here -- do you still think that starting on the
> 8th would give enough time to people who might be away from the PGP keys
> during the holiday season, or would we be cutting it tight?

> (I am almost never away from my own PGP subkeys so I don't feel I can
> judge myself whether it would be enough time.)

I also am never away from my PGP subkeys, so I can't speak from personal
experience.  I believe that starting on the 8th would probably be okay,
though.

That said, I'm also rather dubious that anything is going to fundamentally
change in the next few days.  Ian already has an excellent,
well-thought-out proposal on the ballot that reflects his position.  The
available solution space seems well-covered by the options available.
It's getting harder to keep the discussion productive.

Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes to
statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this deep
into this discussion?  To me at least it feels like everyone has had a
say, all the ballot proposals that were fielded within a week or so of
when the GR was originally proposed have been refined and are
well-represented, all of the major constituencies seem to be represented
on the ballot, and we've reached the point of diminishing returns.

Maybe I'm wrong.  I have my own bias towards making a decision and I'm
also dubious about the merits of high-level statements of principle, so I
probably have a skewed perspective.  If people feel like their vote and
the outcome are truly likely to change based on further work on ballot
options, by all means second or otherwise indicate support for Ian's
request for delay and I guess we can all figure out what to do with that
information.  Personally, I'm reasonably certain that nothing that could
happen over the next four or five days would change my vote.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Gunnar Wolf]

[ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]

Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal.  I need a few more days to do this.  (Guillem's proposal has
> IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance.  I hope we
> can make a version which combines Guillem's framing with some
> appropriate specific guidance, perhaps taken from one of the other
> proposals.)
> 
> Sam has decided to cut short this process.  We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago.  This is very short.
> (...)

Ian, please don't.

Well, you did. But I must say, I'm not the least thrilled at seeing
this initiative.

While I share Sam's impression that the whole discussion has been
(impressively!) very civil and productive, I do not think further
delaying will be beneficial to the project. Yes, Guillem's proposal
arrived quite late in the process, presenting a very different and
important view. Yes, probably it could be improved. However, stating
the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the
observed fact that it started no less than five years ago. We are
trying to put closure to it. I think we can improve minutiae forever,
but will never reach a perfect solution that leaves everybody
happy. That's the main reason to hold a GR. The available options
(Guillem's included) will most probably cover the opinions / feelings
of basically all developers. And if something is missing, as others
have stated, either a high rank for FD or a new GR following this one
can be the next possible action.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Matthew Vernon]

Sam Hartman  writes:

> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
> that the vote is called to early.
>
> They can vote FD above other options.
> And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
> would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.

This is true, but unhelpful - it would obviously be a "nuclear" option,
so I suspect that even people who think that will be reluctant to
restart this entire discussion all over again.

The right answer is to give people another couple of days to get the
last option sorted out. That doesn't stop everyone being able to vote in
good time, and is obviously fair to everyone.

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Sam Hartman]

I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
that the vote is called to early.

They can vote FD above other options.
And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:46:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> > > 
> > >  Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> > > 
> > >  1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> > > period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
> > > Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)
> > 
> > It would have been better that you did this before he called for
> > vote. There was clearly enough time to do this, and he's been
> > clear that he would do the CFV today.
> 
> I had not appreciated that.  It may have been buried in one of the
> mails.
> 
> > >  5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
> > > are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
> > > as applicable.)
> > > 
> > >  6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
> > >   (i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
> > >   (ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
> > >to our (1), above; and
> > >   (ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
> > >for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
> > > 
> > > I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
> > > Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.
> > 
> > 5) asks the DPL's decision to be put on hold, so that part would
> > require 2K. But I think it's too late for that.
> 
> Are you saying my proposal is ineffective even if I get 2K
> seconds ?

Currently, I think it is. But I'm still open to let people
convince me otherwise. So the options I currently see is:
- That someone convices me that you can still overturn his decision
  to change the discussion period after he called for vote. In
  theory he could change the discussion period and call for vote at
  the same time, and in that case I would clearly allow it, but
  I'm not sure where the line is between allowing it and not.
- That someone convices that amendements that received enough
  sponsors reset reset the discussion period.

> I would like to point out that I asked you for advice about this on
> the 20th of November.  Specifically, I asked
>   Supposing Sam calls for a vote, can I stop him ?
> and then wrote
>   I think maybe I can do this:
> and then gave a summary of roughly what my (4) and (5) do.
> You didn't reply.

I'm sorry, I missed that mail.


Kurt

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I agree that all the useful options seem to be on the ballot, and I look
> forward to see what comes out. I would prefer that we didn't start
> something that looks like meta-discussing options, and meta-discussing
> whether to meta-discuss options, and so on.

I have a concrete option that I am still working on and can propose in
the next 24-48h, based on Guillem's text.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> > 
> >  Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> > 
> >  1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> > period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
> > Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)
> 
> It would have been better that you did this before he called for
> vote. There was clearly enough time to do this, and he's been
> clear that he would do the CFV today.

I had not appreciated that.  It may have been buried in one of the
mails.

> >  5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
> > are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
> > as applicable.)
> > 
> >  6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
> >   (i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
> >   (ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
> >to our (1), above; and
> >   (ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
> >for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
> > 
> > I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
> > Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> 5) asks the DPL's decision to be put on hold, so that part would
> require 2K. But I think it's too late for that.

Are you saying my proposal is ineffective even if I get 2K
seconds ?


I would like to point out that I asked you for advice about this on
the 20th of November.  Specifically, I asked
  Supposing Sam calls for a vote, can I stop him ?
and then wrote
  I think maybe I can do this:
and then gave a summary of roughly what my (4) and (5) do.
You didn't reply.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> 
>  Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> 
>  1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
> Friday the 6th of December.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)

It would have been better that you did this before he called for
vote. There was clearly enough time to do this, and he's been
clear that he would do the CFV today.

>  2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems GR
> is overturned.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)

It's not because he happens to be DPL, that I think this clause
should apply to the CFV.

>  3. Additionally, if the DPL's decision to call for a vote is enabled
> by a decision by the DPL to vary the minimum discussion period:
> the DPL's decision to vary the minimum discussion period is
> overturned.

It would have been better that you did this before the CFV.

>  4. If the decision to call for a vote cannot be overturned via
> Constitution 4.1(3), the DPL's decision(s) to propose all the
> DPL's options on the ballot(s) is overturned.  We believe the
> effect of this is to either stop the process so that it must be
> restarted, or to drop the DPL's options from the ballot so that
> the DPL no longer has standing to call for a vote.  (We would
> prefer the latter, if we can't have what we want in (1) and (2),
> above.)

If you're not happy with the result of the GR, you can have a
whole new GR.

>  5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
> are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
> as applicable.)
> 
>  6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
>   (i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
>   (ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
>to our (1), above; and
>   (ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
>for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
> 
> I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
> Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.

5) asks the DPL's decision to be put on hold, so that part would
require 2K. But I think it's too late for that.


Kurt

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Enrico Zini]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I think we can use the constitutional process to delay this, to make

I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
for a vote.

I agree that all the useful options seem to be on the ballot, and I look
forward to see what comes out. I would prefer that we didn't start
something that looks like meta-discussing options, and meta-discussing
whether to meta-discuss options, and so on.

Nitpicking on the constitutional process like this looks to me like an
interesting move in some competitive board game. I would prefer to see
less competition, and more cooperative focus on trying to make Policy
unstuck while trying to keep pain to a minimum.


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Sam Hartman]

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson  writes:

Ian>  2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems
Ian> GR is overturned.  (Constitution 4.1(3).)

This was not a DPL decision.
This was a decision of an author of a proposal on the ballot.
So I don't think this is a decision that can be overturned under 4.1
(3).


For those considering how to respond in thinking about whether to
overturn or put on hold my decision to change the minimum discussion
period.
Please note that what I effectively did is make it so that all
amendments are treated the same.

Under Ian's constitution, amendments proposed by the author of the GR
reset the discussion clock, but other changes to the amendments do not.
I used the DPL's powers to make sure that we had a consistent playing
field by making it so that like the other authors of proposals on the
ballot, I was able to accept amendments without delaying the process.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Ian Jackson]

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> > reasonably points out is desirable.  Russ suggested a voting period
> > starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible [2],
> > which probably means a call for votes the previous day.
> 
> Russ, could you chime in here -- do you still think that starting on the
> 8th would give enough time to people who might be away from the PGP keys
> during the holiday season, or would we be cutting it tight?
> 
> (I am almost never away from my own PGP subkeys so I don't feel I can
> judge myself whether it would be enough time.)

I could live with a shorter timescale if I had at least 24h and
preferably 48h notice.

I do think that it should have been obvious that this public
discussion ought to have been done in a more relaxed way.  Extra time
does not increase the pain much.  The public discussion should have
started a month ago, or in January.  But we are here now and trying to
postpone it over Christmas in the middle of it is a bad idea.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:

> We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> reasonably points out is desirable.  Russ suggested a voting period
> starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible [2],
> which probably means a call for votes the previous day.

Russ, could you chime in here -- do you still think that starting on the
8th would give enough time to people who might be away from the PGP keys
during the holiday season, or would we be cutting it tight?

(I am almost never away from my own PGP subkeys so I don't feel I can
judge myself whether it would be enough time.)

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature