Steve Langasek dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:53:02PM -0700]:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> > > with the
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> > with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> > with the
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
>> accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
>> without having it be sponsored. These two rules
Simon Richter writes:
> A core component of the operating system we ship is so complex that it
> needs to be maintained by full-time employees. This has effectively given
> the corporation employing these people veto power over our technical
> decisions, because even though the software they ship
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:45:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Debian is a political project that promotes the autonomy of users vis-a-vis
> > large organizations such as corporations and governments. It does this by
> > promoting the creation of free software, and by fostering a community
On 2021-04-20 12:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone
else
feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.
A single person whom we trust to upload anything to our archive.[1]
If the person thinks there is something left that
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
> votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.
I dispute this statement. Some people said that.
I disagree that voting secrecy is (sensibly)
* Wouter Verhelst [2021-04-20 13:50]:
Not sure whether you consider this an issue, but I don't see that as a
problem. There is a difference between "we can't reach an agreement and
therefore decide on a no-outcome vote" (which the default option is),
and "we have considered all the options and
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Carter writes:
>
> > I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
> > still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
> > think anyone should feel too much pressure right now
Hi Eduard,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:49:56PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> > political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish
> Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
> > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
> > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24
On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure
that shorter discussion periods would only happen
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted
> amendments but not new ballot options, which makes little logical sense
> and
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:37:01PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Simon,
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> > project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> >
Jonathan Carter writes:
> I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
> still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
> think anyone should feel too much pressure right now to come up with
> solutions, and I'd urge any group of people who are
Hi Russ
On 2021/04/19 21:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm helping hash out some ideas in private only because framing the
> problem and brainstorming possible solutions requires a ton of back and
> forth...
I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
still fresh in our
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Our current processes work best, I believe, if proposals are written in
> the open, so that if people disagree with the proposed texts, they can
> start working on their amendment right away, which is much more
> difficult to do under the time pressure of a GR
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
> strategic abuse.
This asymmetry guards against a GR discussion being allowed to continue
Hallo,
* Simon Richter [Mon, Apr 19 2021, 06:37:01PM]:
> Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish
Catch 22?
Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
discussions. No
Hi Sam,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Certainly in the systemd process there were a number of short comings
> that came to light that are worth improving:
>
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in
> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
Theodore> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
>> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
>> this > issue" implies that
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> Debian is a
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
>
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 14:05 +0100, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
> > this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.
The vote in fact shows the opposite. That interpretation of the result
On 2021-04-19 02:46, Brian Thompson wrote:
Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of
the
FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
Debian is a technical project where
On 2021-04-19 08:57, Jonathan Carter wrote:
That's more than just a big assumption, I'd go as far to say that it's
a
big leap to assume that from that option. Additionally, you're assuming
that that attempts to fix the problems in our voting system would
somehow make us more political? How
Hi Benda
On 2021/04/19 05:30, Benda Xu wrote:
> I would like to congratulate you for becoming our next DPL.
Thanks!
>> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on
>> the back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in
>> our methods for making
Hi,
> Benda Xu 於 2021年4月19日 11:40 寫道：
>
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs. Such a working group will distract us from
> achieving technical excellence.
>
Most of
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathan Carter writes:
> On 2021/04/18 13:20, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> The details of the results are available at:
>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
>
> Thanks for all your work on this vote, I believe that you made excellent
> decisions as
ing working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result) On 4/18/21 9:56 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the
On 4/18/21 9:56 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> Debian is a technical project where people
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 14:04 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>
> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on the
> back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in our
> methods for making decisions. I think that we should set up a working
> group to
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>...
> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
> vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
> respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
> free
35 matches
Mail list logo
