On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote,
>
> 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
> 2) Increase requirements to Q [3:1]
>
> and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
> wants to keep the cur
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for
General Resolutions"):
> On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
> > preamble that clearly explains what problem is being
Ron wrote:
[...Wouter Verhelst's counts...]
> Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
> can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
> required. How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
> evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a "v
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> MJ Ray (07/01/2009):
> > It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> > simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
> > debian.org. I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a
> > week.
>
> Even for people who mi
* MJ Ray [Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:04:50 +]:
> It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
> debian.org. I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a week.
o/` I am speechless, speechless
T
MJ Ray (07/01/2009):
> Previously, I noted that fewer than 80 people participated in even the
> hotly disputed lenny blobs GR discussion. That suggests to me that
> lots of DDs aren't participating until the vote.
>
> It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
> simpl
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
> > unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
>
> You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
> it.
Previously, I noted that
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:20:29AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble
> > that
> > clearly explains what problem is being solved.
>
> The goal is to change the needed seconds fo
On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble
> that
> clearly explains what problem is being solved.
The goal is to change the needed seconds for a GR.
> For the moment I do not know if the problem is the multiplication
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said:
> Basic math says that in the described two way vote, if an option wins
> by 1.5Q, and the vote needs 3Q to be quorate, the number of people who
> have voted for the option is 2.25Q, which is more than the proposal.
> I don't think this is an argument
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
> unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
it. The discussion so far on this
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for
General Resolutions"):
> The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
> preamble that clearly explains what problem is being solved. For the
> moment I do not know if the pr
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:01:17PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
>
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
Eh, -devel is for technical issues pe
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
> > for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
> > some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out? [...]
>
> Yes, based on the summary
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just
> > to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential
> > options before they have any chance of building consensus and others
> > will be far too entrenched by the time public discu
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone.
thi
Le Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:50:36AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
> to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.
>
> I would also like options:
> - to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further
On 05/01/09 at 23:37 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> >> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
> > No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
> > suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.)
>
> After all the mails in the thread, I
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
> > however. I'd suggest:
> > Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
> > a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replaci
>> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
> No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
> suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.)
After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something
very similar to what I in
Michael Goetze wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
>
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
better for
MJ Ray wrote:
> to reduce GRs, having
> another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Ron wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
> > discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
> > Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
> > popular DDs be able to propose
Hi :)
Neil McGovern wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
> however. I'd suggest:
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
> a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
> references to K with Q.
> b) 4.2.7 is reworded to st
Chris Waters writes:
> So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
> further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
> magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
> still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
> o
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> > I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> > can't accept compromise.
> I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
> to mean.
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the op
Chris Waters writes:
> And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
> afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an
> option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just
> stupid.
Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's suggestion was a
*
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Hi all,
we could even go further and change towards a paradigm similar to Demexp
(demexp.org): permanent vote.
For non-anonymous votes it is very easy: when the number of seconders is more
than half of the number actively voting developers, the GR is accepted. We
could for instance define it as h
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Part of the problem is that we never have "no, just no" on our
> ballots, so the only alternative is to vote "further discussion",
> even if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion,
> and, as far as you're concerned, the matter is settled
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
>
> Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussio
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adeodato Simó [090101 23:36]:
> > No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
> > resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
> > boat shared with friends, you should act res
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be wil
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:47:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
> proposing is a compromise that you hope everyone will be able to agree
> upon.
I think that's a hugely important ability. I'm also worried that
setting the thresho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:41:56PM +1030, Ron wrote:
>It seems quite clear that recent (ab)uses of the GR process have had
>little positive and immense negative affects on the project. And I
>don't mean that in the sense that "My Favourite Option Ma
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
> > have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
> > want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
> > be wasted wit
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> > ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> > conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> > wider DD population,
>
> If an
On 31/12/08 at 12:35 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> > (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
>
> (or high, as others have said in this thread)
>
> I am not sure about this... Som
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> wider DD population,
If an option can't get seconds enough to
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> > only means "I
* Adeodato Simó [090101 23:36]:
> > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
> > much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
> > They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
> > second the wording as already proposed, or a
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> > and be more vigilant about withdrawing op
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
>
> > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > > because the people who do care about that option winning should
> > > get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete
> > > opinion an
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
> > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> > and concerns.
> The people who do car
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
>
> > Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
> > > don't plan on ranking first.
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
don't plan on ranking ab
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> > plan on ranking first.
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. You shou
Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> you don't plan on ranking first.
(or high, as others have said in this thread)
I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
rich enough set of op
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> plan on ranking first.
I've thought a bit about it, and I think that there would be no
unpleasant side-effects; so I agree with it.
The case I considered is a recen
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.
>
> See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.
It seems like most people who responded preferred Q up to now. It might
end up as an amendment otherwise. :)
> > It would be also be
Charles Plessy writes:
> in light of the painful firmware GR this year, I think that the
> following ideas can help to avoid such a situation to happen again.
>
> - Restrict the use of 3:1 supermajority to GRs proposing changes of
> our fundation documents.
This restriction would not address th
Dear all,
since it is rare that a GR is rejected by a majority of persons ranking
"Further discussion" above all, I do not think that there is a need to make it
more difficult to propose a GR. Nevertheless, in light of the painful firmware
GR this year, I think that the following ideas can help to
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 December 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
> > Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
>
> Eh, that's incorrect.
Eh, that's unhelpful. I found both the email's terms and some of
the more recent vote pages
On Tue Dec 30 09:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
> > see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
> > represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
>
> This is what I disagree with f
* Wouter Verhelst [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:21:58 +0100]:
I'm still undecided whether I'm for Q, 2Q, or what. But:
> Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
> pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
> found only the following ones:
I d
[Stephen Gran]
> That just means that the number of people who think the vote is even
> worth having is not that different to the number of votes required to
> make it valid. That's probably not all that bad a thing, IMHO.
If that is sound reasoning, then it is also a reason to have a higher
num
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
> Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
Eh, that's incorrect.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...]
> Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
> pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
> found only the following ones:
I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
>>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
>> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the
Joerg Jaspert writes:
>>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
>>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
>> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
>> have to be specified or there will be arguments).
>
>
Ben Finney writes:
> I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
> see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
> represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
This is what I disagree with for all the reasons that I already stated
(and which I w
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,
>
> Current Developer Count = 1021
> Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9765453086705
> Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.9296359260114
>
> this will mean that future GRs woul
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> What are the consequences of setting the bar too high? Well, I
> think it would favour organised campaign groups, it encourages
> clustering around flags too early rather than seeking compromises
This is a very compelling argument, and it convinced me that I s
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> >> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> >> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> > not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
>
> It is 2Q as
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. Yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
> uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think it
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> Or we have 2 vote options, one for 2Q, one for Q. What makes more sense?
> Guess changing mine, to avoid confusion/too many options?! (All just
> dreaming ahead to a possible vote :) )
I don't think having options for 2Q and Q for resolution sponsoring
makes the ballot too
>> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discuss
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> a) The cons
>> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
>> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
> Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
> have to be specified or there will be arguments).
floor() in this case. Well, my
>> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
>> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
>> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
>> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
> Why are
>> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
It is 2Q as I do want a seperation to the one in b) (to stop a
d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most prob
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
> your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
The main reason I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this is that in practice
not all 1000 developers participate in
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it
Russ Allbery writes:
> Sure, I'm all for clarity and precision. I just don't see a reason
> to put the ones that no one wants to champion on the final ballot.
Nor do I. You still seem to be making an unnecessary connection
between “the option isn't well supported enough to be on the ballot”
and
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> > proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> > phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of
> > the vote's result.
>
> If no
Ben Finney writes:
> I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an option
> one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option no-one
> wants on the ballot”.
I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
proposing is a compromise that you hope ever
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
> proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
> phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the
> vote's result.
If no one is going to rank those options hi
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Don Armstrong writes:
>
> >> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> >> plan on ranking first.
>
> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.
Ben Finney writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
>> plan on ranking first.
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to
> get it vote
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:54:41 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too smal
Don Armstrong writes:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist.
Absolutely agreed with this sentiment.
> You
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolut
This one time, at band camp, Kalle Kivimaa said:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
> > a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> > a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>
> This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
> for the quorum (2Q vs
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
for the quorum (2Q vs 3Q). I think that is too much. I think floor(Q)
sponsors wou
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
92 matches
Mail list logo
