Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[seb....@gmail.com]

If a few people felt the need to delay, that should have an effect.

Surely! But indeed there was an (maybe to small) effect in the migration 
vote. On September 14, I suggested a compromise 
 
between David’s first proposal 
 and 
Thierry’s intervention for delay 
. This 
has been taken into account in the final proposal 
.
​
John H Palmieri schrieb am Freitag, 7. Oktober 2022 um 18:55:09 UTC+2:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I just had another look at the voting thread, where most votes were 
>> voiced in the first two days, and the almost-slient discussion thread, 
>> where mostly a few practical aspects of the migrations were discussed. From 
>> this, I don't get the impression that the most voters felt they needed more 
>> time to think or discuss their decision.
>>
>
> Discussions about the timing of the vote were mainly in the thread 
> "incremental migration to github?", not the discussion thread or the vote 
> thread.Also, I'm not sure it matters what "most voters" felt. If a few 
> people felt the need to delay, that should have an effect.
>
>  
>
>>
>> In general, I would keep the voting system simple. The migration to 
>> github was one particular vote, but for example the voting on the doc 
>> styles was held without much of a prior discussion and on a shorter 
>> deadline.
>>
>> So maybe something simple as the following?
>> "Small votes:" Have to have a github issue that is at least one week old, 
>> don't require a discussion on the mailing list and the voting period cannot 
>> be shorter than 4 days.
>> "Big votes": Require a discussion thread on the mailing list that is at 
>> least one week old and the voting period cannot be shorter than 1.5 weeks.
>> Upon the public request of a single member of the mailing list, every 
>> "small vote" can be upgraded to a "big vote". In this case, all previously 
>> handed-in votes are invalid and a discussion thread has to be opened.
>>
>> On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 17:43:02 UTC+2 John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, 
>>> "... the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there 
>>> was just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently 
>>> too indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and 
>>> perhaps not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of 
>>> some transgression.
>>>
>>> In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an 
>>> intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is 
>>> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument").
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote: 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: 
 >> 
 >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed 
 that "we start a vote around October 1". 
 > 
 > 
 > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26 

 yes, that's exactly what I meant. 

 Dima 

 > 
 > -- 
 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "sage-devel" group. 
 > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
 send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. 
 > To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.
  


>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/31a2244f-31a7-4f6b-82fc-b4da8b08861en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:16:03 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

>
> John, your proposed Oct 1 deadline (from your message on Sep 16)
>

Sorry, I should have written: "your proposed Oct 1 start date of the vote."

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/de1e38d8-7630-4fbc-95e8-781eb1f304cbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I just had another look at the voting thread, where most votes were 
>> voiced in the first two days, and the almost-slient discussion thread, 
>> where mostly a few practical aspects of the migrations were discussed. From 
>> this, I don't get the impression that the most voters felt they needed more 
>> time to think or discuss their decision.
>>
>
> Discussions about the timing of the vote were mainly in the thread 
> "incremental migration to github?", not the discussion thread or the vote 
> thread.Also, I'm not sure it matters what "most voters" felt. If a few 
> people felt the need to delay, that should have an effect.
>

In general I agree with you, but for what it's worth, I certainly thought 
that David had reached a thoughtful compromise regarding the voting 
timeline in his message of Sep 19. 

John, your proposed Oct 1 deadline (from your message on Sep 16) had seemed 
to be conditional on interest in including GitLab in the vote, but there 
seemed to be little interest in that on the list. 
Sebastien's earlier request in his message of Sep 12 lacked concreteness 
(he asked that "the discussion on the long term issues should be done when 
the urgent short term issues are dealt with").
All earlier requests for delays had asked either (a) for work to be done as 
a prerequisite for a discussion (which had been completed by Sep 12 or so), 
or (b) for work to stop (which had been retracted after a clarification of 
facts).

No discussion of timing happened on the list after David's Sep 19 message 
and before the start of the vote (Sep 21); and there were also no requests 
for extensions of the deadline when the vote was open.

(I have compiled a timeline of the relevant messages on the list that I'll 
be happy to share with anyone interested)

Matthias

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/ed8e79f6-d68f-4ae0-82f9-5e165d10b93fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-7 tobias...@gmail.com wrote:

> I just had another look at the voting thread, where most votes were voiced 
> in the first two days, and the almost-slient discussion thread, where 
> mostly a few practical aspects of the migrations were discussed. From this, 
> I don't get the impression that the most voters felt they needed more time 
> to think or discuss their decision.
>

Discussions about the timing of the vote were mainly in the thread 
"incremental migration to github?", not the discussion thread or the vote 
thread.Also, I'm not sure it matters what "most voters" felt. If a few 
people felt the need to delay, that should have an effect.

 

>
> In general, I would keep the voting system simple. The migration to github 
> was one particular vote, but for example the voting on the doc styles was 
> held without much of a prior discussion and on a shorter deadline.
>
> So maybe something simple as the following?
> "Small votes:" Have to have a github issue that is at least one week old, 
> don't require a discussion on the mailing list and the voting period cannot 
> be shorter than 4 days.
> "Big votes": Require a discussion thread on the mailing list that is at 
> least one week old and the voting period cannot be shorter than 1.5 weeks.
> Upon the public request of a single member of the mailing list, every 
> "small vote" can be upgraded to a "big vote". In this case, all previously 
> handed-in votes are invalid and a discussion thread has to be opened.
>
> On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 17:43:02 UTC+2 John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>> I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, "... 
>> the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there was 
>> just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently too 
>> indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and perhaps 
>> not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of some 
>> transgression.
>>
>> In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an 
>> intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is 
>> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument").
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed 
>>> that "we start a vote around October 1". 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26 
>>>
>>> yes, that's exactly what I meant. 
>>>
>>> Dima 
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > -- 
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group. 
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. 
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bff3f1e3-53b5-4ff4-a12d-ccc3993eed0en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

Maybe more to the point, the thread was going in the direction of a general 
policy discussion about how to conduct votes and how to handle requests for 
delays. Dima interrupted, unprompted as far as I can see, by bringing back 
up the particular recent case along with comments about one particular 
person who had advocated for a delay. We should be able to discuss general 
policy issues without this kind of derailing.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:43:02 AM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote:

> I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, "... 
> the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there was 
> just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently too 
> indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and perhaps 
> not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of some 
> transgression.
>
> In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an 
> intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is 
> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument").
>
>
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that 
>> "we start a vote around October 1". 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26 
>>
>> yes, that's exactly what I meant. 
>>
>> Dima 
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "sage-devel" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>  
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b3121e9a-0939-4156-9a84-1a7308181e59n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Tobias Diez]

I just had another look at the voting thread, where most votes were voiced 
in the first two days, and the almost-slient discussion thread, where 
mostly a few practical aspects of the migrations were discussed. From this, 
I don't get the impression that the most voters felt they needed more time 
to think or discuss their decision.

In general, I would keep the voting system simple. The migration to github 
was one particular vote, but for example the voting on the doc styles was 
held without much of a prior discussion and on a shorter deadline.

So maybe something simple as the following?
"Small votes:" Have to have a github issue that is at least one week old, 
don't require a discussion on the mailing list and the voting period cannot 
be shorter than 4 days.
"Big votes": Require a discussion thread on the mailing list that is at 
least one week old and the voting period cannot be shorter than 1.5 weeks.
Upon the public request of a single member of the mailing list, every 
"small vote" can be upgraded to a "big vote". In this case, all previously 
handed-in votes are invalid and a discussion thread has to be opened.

On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 17:43:02 UTC+2 John H Palmieri wrote:

> I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, "... 
> the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there was 
> just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently too 
> indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and perhaps 
> not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of some 
> transgression.
>
> In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an 
> intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is 
> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument").
>
>
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that 
>> "we start a vote around October 1". 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26 
>>
>> yes, that's exactly what I meant. 
>>
>> Dima 
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "sage-devel" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>  
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/51c38e6c-7ecc-4034-b69d-9e52cb274228n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, "... 
the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there was 
just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently too 
indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and perhaps 
not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of some 
transgression.

In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an intentionally 
misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat 
than an opponent's real argument").


On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote:
> >>
> >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that 
> "we start a vote around October 1".
> >
> >
> > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26
>
> yes, that's exactly what I meant.
>
> Dima
>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/da21919d-2b1d-488d-adca-df4b4b2d6ba8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that "we 
>> start a vote around October 1".
>
>
> I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26

yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Dima

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1B77h4_frHzjA6FvMYcy_CcGgYViqGGEy9QxPb7ZdiJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote:

> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that "we 
> start a vote around October 1".
>
 
I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 3:05:38 PM UTC-7 John H Palmieri wrote:

> Anyway, the point of having a policy is so that we don't have to concern 
> ourselves with the motives of the people requesting the delay or anything 
> else: we would just handle the request as our policy dictates.
>

+1.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/362ab5f5-74fe-4023-b319-b8ae0cb47495n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed that "we 
start a vote around October 1".

Anyway, the point of having a policy is so that we don't have to concern 
ourselves with the motives of the people requesting the delay or anything 
else: we would just handle the request as our policy dictates.

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:42:17 PM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022, 20:21 Jonathan Thornburg,  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM John H Palmieri  
>> wrote:
>> > There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of
>> > voting, but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the
>> > hope is that they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but
>> > also about the atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a
>> > delay, probably the executive committee would consider it and make a
>> > decision. That would not likely result in a vote on whether to delay, 
>> but
>> > just a decision to delay the vote, and probably to schedule some 
>> meetings
>> > for discussion.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:25:26AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>> > Thanks!  So it's basically this model that you already described:
>> > "Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
>> > decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
>> > disagreement."   Having an elected steering committee is common in
>> > other software projects I pay attention to (e.g., Python and Jupyter).
>>
>> As another data point, in section 12.8 of his book "The Design and
>> Evolution of C++", Bjarne Stroustrup describes an invocation of a
>> "delay a vote to the next meeting" rule in the ANSI/ISO C++ standards
>> committee (which at the time typically met about 3 times per year):
>>
>>   [[a proposal for extending the C++ language]] was presented at the
>>   standards meeting in Seattle in July 1990.  There appeared to be a
>>   massive majority for making this the first non-mandated extension
>>   to C++.  At that point, Beth Crockett from Apple stopped the committee
>>   dead in its tracks by invoking what is known as the "two week rule:"
>>   Any member can postpone voting on a proposal that has not been in
>>   the hands of the members at least two weeks before the meeting until
>>   the following meeting.  This rule protects people against being rushed
>>   into things they don't understand and ensures that there will always
>>   be time to consult with colleagues.
>>
>>   As you might imagine, Beth didn't gain instant popularity by that
>>   veto.  However, her caution was well founded, and she saved us from
>>   making a bad mistake.  Thanks!  As we reexamined the problem after
>>   the meeting, Doug McIlroy [[found a better solution]]
>>
>
> In our case, the delay was requested by an individual who for months 
> ignores repeated requests to provide a backup of our old wiki (which he 
> hosts in his academic department, without anyone else having access to the 
> host). One of the reasons for delay given was that he was upset that I 
> "violently" (I guess in Frenchish this means "bluntly") pointed this out on 
> this very forum, as an example of dangers of a small bus factor.
>
> And in our case the voting was allowed over a long period of time.
>
> Dima
>
>
>
>
>> -- 
>> -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <
>> dr.j.th...@gmail-pink.com>
>>currently on the west coast of Canada
>>"Why would we install sewers in London?  Everyone keeps getting cholera
>> again and again so there's obviously no reason to install sewers.  We
>> just need to get used to this as the new normal."
>> -- 2022-Jul-25 tweet by "Neoliberal John Snow"
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/Yz8qqM4YuOVtYNJI%40iron.bkis-orchard.net
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/dc8bfb2b-1aa0-4b47-93df-8af1ef9f6912n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022, 20:21 Jonathan Thornburg,  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM John H Palmieri 
> wrote:
> > There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of
> > voting, but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the
> > hope is that they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but
> > also about the atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a
> > delay, probably the executive committee would consider it and make a
> > decision. That would not likely result in a vote on whether to delay, but
> > just a decision to delay the vote, and probably to schedule some meetings
> > for discussion.
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:25:26AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> > Thanks!  So it's basically this model that you already described:
> > "Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
> > decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
> > disagreement."   Having an elected steering committee is common in
> > other software projects I pay attention to (e.g., Python and Jupyter).
>
> As another data point, in section 12.8 of his book "The Design and
> Evolution of C++", Bjarne Stroustrup describes an invocation of a
> "delay a vote to the next meeting" rule in the ANSI/ISO C++ standards
> committee (which at the time typically met about 3 times per year):
>
>   [[a proposal for extending the C++ language]] was presented at the
>   standards meeting in Seattle in July 1990.  There appeared to be a
>   massive majority for making this the first non-mandated extension
>   to C++.  At that point, Beth Crockett from Apple stopped the committee
>   dead in its tracks by invoking what is known as the "two week rule:"
>   Any member can postpone voting on a proposal that has not been in
>   the hands of the members at least two weeks before the meeting until
>   the following meeting.  This rule protects people against being rushed
>   into things they don't understand and ensures that there will always
>   be time to consult with colleagues.
>
>   As you might imagine, Beth didn't gain instant popularity by that
>   veto.  However, her caution was well founded, and she saved us from
>   making a bad mistake.  Thanks!  As we reexamined the problem after
>   the meeting, Doug McIlroy [[found a better solution]]
>

In our case, the delay was requested by an individual who for months
ignores repeated requests to provide a backup of our old wiki (which he
hosts in his academic department, without anyone else having access to the
host). One of the reasons for delay given was that he was upset that I
"violently" (I guess in Frenchish this means "bluntly") pointed this out on
this very forum, as an example of dangers of a small bus factor.

And in our case the voting was allowed over a long period of time.

Dima




> --
> -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <
> dr.j.thornb...@gmail-pink.com>
>currently on the west coast of Canada
>"Why would we install sewers in London?  Everyone keeps getting cholera
> again and again so there's obviously no reason to install sewers.  We
> just need to get used to this as the new normal."
> -- 2022-Jul-25 tweet by "Neoliberal John Snow"
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/Yz8qqM4YuOVtYNJI%40iron.bkis-orchard.net
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq0p54e6reu7Nuwavo4K%3D9XHz8VdJ%3DYfz3ZpbH-CezNFrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Jonathan Thornburg]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM John H Palmieri  wrote:
> There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of
> voting, but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the
> hope is that they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but
> also about the atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a
> delay, probably the executive committee would consider it and make a
> decision. That would not likely result in a vote on whether to delay, but
> just a decision to delay the vote, and probably to schedule some meetings
> for discussion.

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:25:26AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> Thanks!  So it's basically this model that you already described:
> "Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
> decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
> disagreement."   Having an elected steering committee is common in
> other software projects I pay attention to (e.g., Python and Jupyter).

As another data point, in section 12.8 of his book "The Design and
Evolution of C++", Bjarne Stroustrup describes an invocation of a
"delay a vote to the next meeting" rule in the ANSI/ISO C++ standards
committee (which at the time typically met about 3 times per year):

  [[a proposal for extending the C++ language]] was presented at the
  standards meeting in Seattle in July 1990.  There appeared to be a
  massive majority for making this the first non-mandated extension
  to C++.  At that point, Beth Crockett from Apple stopped the committee
  dead in its tracks by invoking what is known as the "two week rule:"
  Any member can postpone voting on a proposal that has not been in
  the hands of the members at least two weeks before the meeting until
  the following meeting.  This rule protects people against being rushed
  into things they don't understand and ensures that there will always
  be time to consult with colleagues.

  As you might imagine, Beth didn't gain instant popularity by that
  veto.  However, her caution was well founded, and she saved us from
  making a bad mistake.  Thanks!  As we reexamined the problem after
  the meeting, Doug McIlroy [[found a better solution]]

-- 
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" 
   currently on the west coast of Canada
   "Why would we install sewers in London?  Everyone keeps getting cholera
again and again so there's obviously no reason to install sewers.  We
just need to get used to this as the new normal."
-- 2022-Jul-25 tweet by "Neoliberal John Snow"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/Yz8qqM4YuOVtYNJI%40iron.bkis-orchard.net.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Dima Pasechnik]

I hope we don't introduce something akin to the US Senate filibuster :-)

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:26 PM William Stein  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM John H Palmieri  wrote:
> > Hi William,
> > There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of 
> > voting, but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the 
> > hope is that they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but 
> > also about the atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a 
> > delay, probably the executive committee would consider it and make a 
> > decision. That would not likely result in a vote on whether to delay, but 
> > just a decision to delay the vote, and probably to schedule some meetings 
> > for discussion.
> >   John
>
> Thanks!  So it's basically this model that you already described:
> "Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
> decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
> disagreement."   Having an elected steering committee is common in
> other software projects I pay attention to (e.g., Python and Jupyter).
>
>  -- William
>
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:18:04 PM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:09 PM John H Palmieri  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from 
> >> > David Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I 
> >> > don't think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, 
> >> > and several people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a 
> >> > decision more quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of 
> >> > those who requested a more deliberate process. It would be good to have 
> >> > a procedure for determining timing for votes, something other than one 
> >> > person just making a decision.
> >> >
> >> > As a starting point:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: 
> >> > it is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an 
> >> > emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time, 
> >> > e.g. recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, 
> >> > and there is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
> >> > 2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The 
> >> > default response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote 
> >> > will now end on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable 
> >> > ("we need to delay this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons 
> >> > to object, then we can hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to 
> >> > decide whether to accept the delay or not.
> >> >
> >> > The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to 
> >> > delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a 
> >> > consensus about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed 
> >> > delay? The longest one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy 
> >> > community, but all the same, I don't want to create a rule that can be 
> >> > abused: one person asks for a ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week 
> >> > vote that fails, then another person, or even the same person, asks for 
> >> > another ridiculous delay, etc.)
> >> >
> >> > Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make 
> >> > decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is 
> >> > disagreement.
> >> >
> >> > Other options?
> >>
> >> What happens in an academic department (e.g., UW)? For example, what
> >> if there is an important department vote about to happen that is
> >> brought to the faculty by a committee, and a faculty member states at
> >> the faculty meeting: "we should delay this vote for 2 weeks to respect
> >> people with a busy schedule, to allow a constructive debate, and to
> >> explore all possibilities". Is there a procedure for delaying votes
> >> in faculty meetings?
> >>
> >> I'm just asking because bylaws tend to spell out in detail the answers
> >> to questions like this, and it's nice to have a concrete example.
> >>
> >> I tried searching for examples of delaying votes in US politics, and
> >> in Summer 2020, Trump tried very hard to delay the US presidential
> >> election:
> >>
> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+delay+election
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
> >> > (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
> >> >> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
> >> >> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
> >> >> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
> >> >>
> >> >> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
> >> >> be respected.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ciao,
> >> >> 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[William Stein]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:45 AM John H Palmieri  wrote:
> Hi William,
> There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of voting, 
> but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the hope is that 
> they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but also about the 
> atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a delay, probably the 
> executive committee would consider it and make a decision. That would not 
> likely result in a vote on whether to delay, but just a decision to delay the 
> vote, and probably to schedule some meetings for discussion.
>   John

Thanks!  So it's basically this model that you already described:
"Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
disagreement."   Having an elected steering committee is common in
other software projects I pay attention to (e.g., Python and Jupyter).

 -- William


>
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:18:04 PM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:09 PM John H Palmieri  wrote:
>> >
>> > The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from 
>> > David Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I 
>> > don't think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, and 
>> > several people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a 
>> > decision more quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of 
>> > those who requested a more deliberate process. It would be good to have a 
>> > procedure for determining timing for votes, something other than one 
>> > person just making a decision.
>> >
>> > As a starting point:
>> >
>> > 1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: 
>> > it is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an 
>> > emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time, 
>> > e.g. recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, and 
>> > there is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
>> > 2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The 
>> > default response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote 
>> > will now end on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable 
>> > ("we need to delay this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons 
>> > to object, then we can hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to decide 
>> > whether to accept the delay or not.
>> >
>> > The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to 
>> > delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a consensus 
>> > about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed delay? The 
>> > longest one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy community, but all 
>> > the same, I don't want to create a rule that can be abused: one person 
>> > asks for a ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week vote that fails, then 
>> > another person, or even the same person, asks for another ridiculous 
>> > delay, etc.)
>> >
>> > Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make 
>> > decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is 
>> > disagreement.
>> >
>> > Other options?
>>
>> What happens in an academic department (e.g., UW)? For example, what
>> if there is an important department vote about to happen that is
>> brought to the faculty by a committee, and a faculty member states at
>> the faculty meeting: "we should delay this vote for 2 weeks to respect
>> people with a busy schedule, to allow a constructive debate, and to
>> explore all possibilities". Is there a procedure for delaying votes
>> in faculty meetings?
>>
>> I'm just asking because bylaws tend to spell out in detail the answers
>> to questions like this, and it's nice to have a concrete example.
>>
>> I tried searching for examples of delaying votes in US politics, and
>> in Summer 2020, Trump tried very hard to delay the US presidential
>> election:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+delay+election
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
>> > (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
>> >> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
>> >> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
>> >> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>> >>
>> >> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
>> >> be respected.
>> >>
>> >> Ciao,
>> >> Thierry
>> >>
>> >> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
>> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
>> >>
>> >> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
>> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
>> >>
>> >> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

Hi William,

There is nothing in our department's bylaws to provide for a delay of 
voting, but we have a chair and we have an executive committee, and the 
hope is that they care not only about the particular issue at hand, but 
also about the atmosphere in the department. So if someone asked for a 
delay, probably the executive committee would consider it and make a 
decision. That would not likely result in a vote on whether to delay, but 
just a decision to delay the vote, and probably to schedule some meetings 
for discussion.

  John

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:18:04 PM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:09 PM John H Palmieri  
> wrote:
> >
> > The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from 
> David Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I 
> don't think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, and 
> several people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a decision 
> more quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of those who 
> requested a more deliberate process. It would be good to have a procedure 
> for determining timing for votes, something other than one person just 
> making a decision.
> >
> > As a starting point:
> >
> > 1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: 
> it is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an 
> emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time, 
> e.g. recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, and 
> there is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
> > 2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The 
> default response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote 
> will now end on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable ("we 
> need to delay this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons to 
> object, then we can hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to decide 
> whether to accept the delay or not.
> >
> > The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to 
> delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a consensus 
> about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed delay? The 
> longest one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy community, but all 
> the same, I don't want to create a rule that can be abused: one person asks 
> for a ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week vote that fails, then 
> another person, or even the same person, asks for another ridiculous delay, 
> etc.)
> >
> > Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make 
> decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is 
> disagreement.
> >
> > Other options?
>
> What happens in an academic department (e.g., UW)? For example, what
> if there is an important department vote about to happen that is
> brought to the faculty by a committee, and a faculty member states at
> the faculty meeting: "we should delay this vote for 2 weeks to respect
> people with a busy schedule, to allow a constructive debate, and to
> explore all possibilities". Is there a procedure for delaying votes
> in faculty meetings?
>
> I'm just asking because bylaws tend to spell out in detail the answers
> to questions like this, and it's nice to have a concrete example.
>
> I tried searching for examples of delaying votes in US politics, and
> in Summer 2020, Trump tried very hard to delay the US presidential
> election:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+delay+election
>
> >
> > --
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
> >> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
> >> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
> >> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
> >>
> >> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
> >> be respected.
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >> Thierry
> >>
> >> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
> >>
> >> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
> >>
> >> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
> >>
> >> [4] Sébastien : "The urgency of short term issues does not imply the
> >> urgency of long term issues"
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/B19uBWUJCAAJ
> >>
> >> [5] Travis : "First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not
> >> have an general clear consensus about doing this move."
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/E3_sU2Y6CAAJ
> >>
> >> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare 

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[kcrisman]

> If we limit such powers, e.g. allowing just one delaying request per year 
> per person, then another vote can be called on a slightly different 
> question, effectively overruling the delaying request.
>

Whether two requests are two similar is the sort of thing a parliamentarian 
decides in (US-based, at least) committee procedures, e.g. Robert's Rules 
or Keesey, so it is plausible to have in some contexts.  I don't think we 
want to go that route in this forum, of course. 

There is also a question of deciding whether the delaying request is 
> reasonable. The only possibility seems to be to give no reason whatsoever, 
> but this is then effectively a veto power, albeit a temporary one...
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/ab7c19de-0b08-4e6b-8443-613a11d94948n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[kcrisman]

several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy 
> schedule, 
> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare minimum." 
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/STo_AT9qFgAJ 
>
>
In general I am very sympathetic to having "all deliberate speed" on big 
decisions like this, and John has brought some good relevant points to the 
discussion.  The question of exactly what we were voting on does seem to 
have been not voted on, precisely, but we don't need infinite regress, and 
the consensus did seem to be that these two options were the only ones that 
were feasible for the people who were actually currently volunteering 
effort, and that they did not rule out work on the other possible options 
for when people interested in those would be able to also give time and 
energy to that potential migration/mirroring.

Moreover, it has in fact been over three weeks since this message was sent, 
and the vote only closed yesterday.  A month does seem like a long time to 
wait on an yes/no online vote, particularly when it is neither the Northern 
nor Southern Hemisphere summer breaks, and given that quite a bit of 
explicit fleshing out happened on the proposal.  After all, at different 
times each one of us may have a "busy schedule".  The implied presumption 
seems to be that only things like conferences and beginnings to academic 
years, as opposed to far heavier teaching loads and number of children than 
most people on this list are likely to have, count for "busy", though I 
hope that was not actually the intention.  Nonetheless, probably *everyone* 
on this list has a busy schedule, which is why it is good that the vote was 
only for one specific thing, and it was not a vote that keeps other options 
off the table in the long (or even fairly near) term.  Even for me, this 
seems to have been a decent compromise between all these conflicting things.

(And for the record, I chose to abstain since I have not been able to 
actively contribute code in the last few years because of ... a busy 
schedule.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/321f829a-0322-4c41-a67f-da650ebfde29n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Dima Pasechnik]

I don't think it is feasible to design a system to delay voting. If we
don't limit the delaying powers of participants, effectively every vote can
be put off indefinitely.

If we limit such powers, e.g. allowing just one delaying request per year
per person, then another vote can be called on a slightly different
question, effectively overruling the delaying request.

There is also a question of deciding whether the delaying request is
reasonable. The only possibility seems to be to give no reason whatsoever,
but this is then effectively a veto power, albeit a temporary one...

Dima


On Thu, 6 Oct 2022, 06:28 Kwankyu Lee,  wrote:

> A suggestion for votes for sage development process:
>
> 1.  Anyone can call for a vote for a relevant issue for sage development.
> 2.  A vote must be preceded by a discussion on the issue on sage-devel,
> where the date and the duration of the vote is determined. A vote lasts at
> least a week.
> 3.  If a dispute about the date or the duration of the vote arises, we
> have another vote for the date or the duration among the suggested
> candidates. This vote for vote is called for only once, immediately, and
> lasts for a week.
>
> An exemplary format of a vote is
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/7h5JoRgHpxY
>
> Will we have a vote for this? :) Other suggestion?
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/08d11497-7595-4f11-be10-41640781abfan%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq2XShiNZvCjHxviGjjPWM06zO95SHvmt3iuNVWPDPUOUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Kwankyu Lee]

A suggestion for votes for sage development process:

1.  Anyone can call for a vote for a relevant issue for sage development.
2.  A vote must be preceded by a discussion on the issue on sage-devel, 
where the date and the duration of the vote is determined. A vote lasts at 
least a week. 
3.  If a dispute about the date or the duration of the vote arises, we have 
another vote for the date or the duration among the suggested candidates. 
This vote for vote is called for only once, immediately, and lasts for a 
week.

An exemplary format of a vote is 
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/7h5JoRgHpxY

Will we have a vote for this? :) Other suggestion? 


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/08d11497-7595-4f11-be10-41640781abfan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[William Stein]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:09 PM John H Palmieri  wrote:
>
> The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from David 
> Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I don't 
> think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, and several 
> people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a decision more 
> quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of those who requested a 
> more deliberate process. It would be good to have a procedure for determining 
> timing for votes, something other than one person just making a decision.
>
> As a starting point:
>
> 1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: it 
> is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an 
> emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time, e.g. 
> recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, and there 
> is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
> 2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The default 
> response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote will now end 
> on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable ("we need to delay 
> this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons to object, then we can 
> hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to decide whether to accept the 
> delay or not.
>
> The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to 
> delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a consensus 
> about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed delay? The longest 
> one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy community, but all the same, 
> I don't want to create a rule that can be abused: one person asks for a 
> ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week vote that fails, then another 
> person, or even the same person, asks for another ridiculous delay, etc.)
>
> Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make decisions, 
> for example about the timing of votes, when there is disagreement.
>
> Other options?

What happens in an academic department (e.g., UW)?  For example, what
if there is an important department vote about to happen that is
brought to the faculty by a committee, and a faculty member states at
the faculty meeting: "we should delay this vote for 2 weeks to respect
people with a busy schedule, to allow a constructive debate, and to
explore all possibilities".  Is there a procedure for delaying votes
in faculty meetings?

I'm just asking because bylaws tend to spell out in detail the answers
to questions like this, and it's nice to have a concrete example.

I tried searching for examples of delaying votes in US politics, and
in Summer 2020, Trump tried very hard to delay the US presidential
election:

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+delay+election

>
> --
> John
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
>> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
>> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>>
>> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
>> be respected.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Thierry
>>
>> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
>>
>> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
>>
>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>>
>> [4] Sébastien : "The urgency of short term issues does not imply the
>> urgency of long term issues"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/B19uBWUJCAAJ
>>
>> [5] Travis : "First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not
>> have an general clear consensus about doing this move."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/E3_sU2Y6CAAJ
>>
>> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare minimum."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/STo_AT9qFgAJ
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/66bd89d6-7cbc-4262-9c22-66d8c238eb35n%40googlegroups.com.



-- 
William (http://wstein.org)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

[sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[John H Palmieri]

The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from David 
Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I don't 
think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, and 
several people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a decision 
more quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of those who 
requested a more deliberate process. It would be good to have a procedure 
for determining timing for votes, something other than one person just 
making a decision.

As a starting point:

1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: it 
is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an 
emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time, 
e.g. recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, and 
there is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The default 
response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote will now 
end on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable ("we need to 
delay this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons to object, then 
we can hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to decide whether to accept 
the delay or not.

The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to 
delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a consensus 
about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed delay? The 
longest one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy community, but all 
the same, I don't want to create a rule that can be abused: one person asks 
for a ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week vote that fails, then 
another person, or even the same person, asks for another ridiculous delay, 
etc.)

Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make 
decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is 
disagreement.

Other options?

-- 
John



On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>
> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
> be respected.
>
> Ciao,
> Thierry
>
> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
>
> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
>
> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>
> [4] Sébastien : "The urgency of short term issues does not imply the 
> urgency of long term issues"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/B19uBWUJCAAJ
>
> [5] Travis : "First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not 
> have an general clear consensus about doing this move."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/E3_sU2Y6CAAJ
>
> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare minimum."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/STo_AT9qFgAJ
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/66bd89d6-7cbc-4262-9c22-66d8c238eb35n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Dima Pasechnik]

I must have been what Dutch would call "direct", English "undiplomatic" and
French "violent", I guess.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022, 20:31 Matthias Koeppe,  wrote:

> Sorry, bad link, I meant to paste this link:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/5jotDDgyBwAJ
>
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 12:29:50 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing that this must be a language barrier at work here,
>> but these accusations of using "violence"
>> (first occurrence,
>> https://cfce091fecee537040d612098a22852d9f083c36--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/developer/index.html#welcome-to-the-sage-developer-s-guide
>> )
>> are by far the most offensive thing that happened both in the original
>> thread and in the current thread.
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:44:37 AM UTC-7 vdelecroix wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I do not interpret Thierry message as an attempt to change the issue
>>> of the vote. Most of the answers focused on this particular point and
>>> hence look completely off topic to me. More dramatically they are also
>>> very rude in that they try to discredit what Thierry attempted to
>>> share. I also felt a lot of violence during the discussion that
>>> preceded the vote and it does continue right now. The problem is about
>>> the form and not about the issue of the decision.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Vincent
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 19:19, David Roe  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was
>>> 46 to 8 in favor. Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the
>>> substantial amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over
>>> the last decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome.
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry
>>> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> several developers asked for delays [...]
>>> >>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll
>>> just point out one specifically:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very
>>> premature"
>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts
>>> to write the detailed
>>> >> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/89395afb-19cf-4013-8fb0-befdf4643a5cn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3xHTrTZ9MBBhG7mGa86TSsqOa9J-sym%2BxDpcdJ17R9QA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

Sorry, bad link, I meant to paste this link: 
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/5jotDDgyBwAJ

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 12:29:50 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> I'm guessing that this must be a language barrier at work here, 
> but these accusations of using "violence" 
> (first occurrence, 
> https://cfce091fecee537040d612098a22852d9f083c36--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/developer/index.html#welcome-to-the-sage-developer-s-guide
> )
> are by far the most offensive thing that happened both in the original 
> thread and in the current thread.
>
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:44:37 AM UTC-7 vdelecroix wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I do not interpret Thierry message as an attempt to change the issue
>> of the vote. Most of the answers focused on this particular point and
>> hence look completely off topic to me. More dramatically they are also
>> very rude in that they try to discredit what Thierry attempted to
>> share. I also felt a lot of violence during the discussion that
>> preceded the vote and it does continue right now. The problem is about
>> the form and not about the issue of the decision.
>>
>> Best,
>> Vincent
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 19:19, David Roe  wrote:
>> >
>> > I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 
>> 46 to 8 in favor. Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the 
>> substantial amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over 
>> the last decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome.
>> > David
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe  
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
>> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> several developers asked for delays [...]
>> >>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just 
>> point out one specifically:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
>> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts 
>> to write the detailed
>> >> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com
>> .
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/89395afb-19cf-4013-8fb0-befdf4643a5cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

I'm guessing that this must be a language barrier at work here, 
but these accusations of using "violence" 
(first occurrence, 
https://cfce091fecee537040d612098a22852d9f083c36--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/developer/index.html#welcome-to-the-sage-developer-s-guide)
are by far the most offensive thing that happened both in the original 
thread and in the current thread.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:44:37 AM UTC-7 vdelecroix wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I do not interpret Thierry message as an attempt to change the issue
> of the vote. Most of the answers focused on this particular point and
> hence look completely off topic to me. More dramatically they are also
> very rude in that they try to discredit what Thierry attempted to
> share. I also felt a lot of violence during the discussion that
> preceded the vote and it does continue right now. The problem is about
> the form and not about the issue of the decision.
>
> Best,
> Vincent
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 19:19, David Roe  wrote:
> >
> > I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 46 
> to 8 in favor. Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the substantial 
> amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over the last 
> decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome.
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> several developers asked for delays [...]
> >>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just 
> point out one specifically:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
> >>
> >>
> >> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts to 
> write the detailed
> >> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com
> .
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c2dc8123-6527-4a7c-8b88-df566d0a2c8cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 11:44:37 AM UTC-7 vdelecroix wrote:

> I do not interpret Thierry message as an attempt to change the issue 
> of the vote.
>

It's probably better if Thierry could clarify that.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/674d6d63-dd94-4cda-af8c-b818f658dc2cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Vincent Delecroix]

Dear all,

I do not interpret Thierry message as an attempt to change the issue
of the vote. Most of the answers focused on this particular point and
hence look completely off topic to me. More dramatically they are also
very rude in that they try to discredit what Thierry attempted to
share. I also felt a lot of violence during the discussion that
preceded the vote and it does continue right now. The problem is about
the form and not about the issue of the decision.

Best,
Vincent

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 19:19, David Roe  wrote:
>
> I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 46 to 8 
> in favor.  Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the substantial amount 
> of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over the last decade), is 
> unlikely to have changed the outcome.
> David
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
>> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>>>
>>> several developers asked for delays [...]
>>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>>
>>
>> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just point 
>> out one specifically:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>>
>>
>> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts to 
>> write the detailed
>> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGEwAA%3Duph8RtToae1gnO2Or5BJ1AO%2Bod%2B5z0hyYpGBO4HO38g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[David Roe]

I will also note that the final vote in favor of moving to github was 46 to
8 in favor.  Another few weeks of discussion, on top of the substantial
amount of time spent over the last few months (in fact, over the last
decade), is unlikely to have changed the outcome.
David

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:51 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
>> several developers asked for delays [...]
>> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>
>
> This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just
> point out one specifically:
>
>
>>
>> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>
>
> This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts to
> write the detailed
> transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nBRxsymmF4t8aL2ebpyNjU7WfS7F3%3DBTCTjco%2B815rQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:

> several developers asked for delays [...] 
> [1,2,3,4,5,6].


This is a misrepresentation of most of the 6 cited messages. I'll just 
point out one specifically:
 

>
> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature" 
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ


This message from Vincent dates Sep 10, which *prompted* our efforts to 
write the detailed 
transition guide, work out many details etc. over the following week.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6ffb834f-3300-43c6-be46-db35ec4000a6n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Democratic issue: rushing decisions

[Matthias Koeppe]

Hi Thierry, 
It was to be expected that you'd send a message trying to question the 
legitimacy of the poll; 
I was only wondering whether it would arrive before or after the voting 
deadline.

It is the opposite of constructive.



On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry 
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>
> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
> be respected.
>
> Ciao,
> Thierry
>
> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
>
> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
>
> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>
> [4] Sébastien : "The urgency of short term issues does not imply the 
> urgency of long term issues"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/B19uBWUJCAAJ
>
> [5] Travis : "First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not 
> have an general clear consensus about doing this move."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/E3_sU2Y6CAAJ
>
> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare minimum."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/STo_AT9qFgAJ
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/d629ba7e-f9a1-4b04-865a-de19d912c545n%40googlegroups.com.