On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:15:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What this position requires is the minimal level of morality to not use
it to favor an opinion or another. And this is something Manoj has been
repeatedly doing; first in the GFDL GR, next in the etch firmwares GR,
now in the
* Julien Blache http://blog.technologeek.org/2008/12/14/149:
[...] do not vote by ranking all options 1 to 7 [...] With that many
options, the votes will end up diluted and who knows what the result
will be.
[And then he suggests a 312 vote for those who'd agree to it.]
Is this really
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es wrote:
Hi,
[And then he suggests a 312 vote for those who'd agree to it.]
I explicitly did not include a ballot suggestion in my post, so please
don't put words in my mouth :)
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - jbla...@debian.org
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:46:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 12 December 2008 15:35, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
On Friday 12 December 2008 12:57, Neil McGovern wrote:
..Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
On 14/12/08 at 12:40 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Julien Blache http://blog.technologeek.org/2008/12/14/149:
[...] do not vote by ranking all options 1 to 7 [...] With that many
options, the votes will end up diluted and who knows what the result
will be.
[And then he suggests a
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:40:56AM +, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Julien Blache http://blog.technologeek.org/2008/12/14/149:
[...] do not vote by ranking all options 1 to 7 [...] With that many
options, the votes will end up diluted and who knows what the result
will be.
[And then he
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
And that's especially why this vote is horribly broken, we can't vote
for _many_ options at the same time, eventually only one is chosen,
unless all the options you want to see win have been ranked equally on
every single ballot out there.
I hope
Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
perfectly correct.
Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
I can't see why it would be harmful to vote 7123456, if you really
prefer options 2,3,4,5,6 in that order.
There's no discussion that you should vote that way if you feel that
way and understand what you're doing wrt the different, orthogonal
Le Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:40:19PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
The problem is, such a strategy works iff everyone votes the same
Hi all,
it there a place where we could dump a copy of our ballots so after a few
iterations of re-voting many we eventually converge on the same combination,
* Pierre Habouzit [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:40:19 +0100]:
For example, if half of the people vote for option2 and option4 as '1'
and other options below, and the other half of voters for option3 and
option4 (and everything else below), then option4 passes over option2
and option3. Yay.
Yes, of
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
--
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
== == = = == === === =
Why on earth does
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
--
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not DFSG ?
I believe this is because the GPL requires
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:27:49PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
As this is pushed via webwml, this isn't done automatically.
For 'live' stats, see
http://master.debian.org/~neilm/gr_membership/index.html
In the past, manoj would link to his personal master.d.o pages for live
stats from the
* Julien BLACHE [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:52:39 +0100]:
[And then he suggests a 312 vote for those who'd agree to it.]
I explicitly did not include a ballot suggestion in my post, so please
don't put words in my mouth :)
Sorry, honest mistake. I intended to put a paraphrased laben on those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil McGovern writes:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
5efca670-0e7b-480e-9899-ecce3446e087
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.
[ 2 ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM
I'm confused by options 2 and 5:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Debian Project Secretary
secret...@debian.org wrote:
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social Contract #4);
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
by the § about delegates in the constitution. Delegates shall take
decision they see fit. What should be [3:1] is to dis-empower them from
having such
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:55:31PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
by the § about delegates in the constitution. Delegates shall take
decision they
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
--
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
Why GPL ? Why not
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es wrote:
Hi,
I explicitly did not include a ballot suggestion in my post, so please
don't put words in my mouth :)
Sorry, honest mistake. I intended to put a paraphrased laben on those
brackets, but I forgot, I'm sorry.
No problem, but you got your
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
[ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
I'm confused by options 2 and 5:
...
As far as I can see, the only difference between these two options is
, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
complies with the DFSG.
That is correct. This is
* Russ Allbery [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:58:07 -0800]:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
Robert Luberda rob...@debian.org (14/12/2008):
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
5efca670-0e7b-480e-9899-ecce3446e087
[ 3 ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or
consensus.
[ 2 ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:44:20PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
b) why have a reaffirm the social contract option when we have
further discussion? We all agreed to honor the social contract
anyway.
Saying that we honor the social contract and then going ahead and doing
the
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
Who will be in charge of stating what complies and what doesn't
comply?
As usual, everyone judges on his/her own, and the technical committee
(or a GR) is needed to override a DD's
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
Does the order after FD count? If I'd rank 1 and 5 below FD, with 1
below 5, and later both reach quorum, would my ranking of 1 below 5 be
taken into account in the 1-vs-5 run, just as if I had ranked them both
above FD, or not?
I'm far from an
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:52:02PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Does the order after FD count? If I'd rank 1 and 5 below FD, with 1
below 5, and later both reach quorum, would my ranking of 1 below 5 be
taken into account in the 1-vs-5 run, just as if I had ranked them both
above FD, or not?
* Loïc Minier (l...@dooz.org) [081214 21:28]:
[ MFU debian-vote@ ]
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
I'm fine with reaffirming the social contract.
The topic is misleading at best. This is don't release lenny.
Cheers,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:57:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
The topic is misleading at best. This is don't release lenny.
That's not what it is either.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Debian Project Secretary secret...@debian.org (13/12/2008):
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
Votes must be received by
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I believe the position of at least some of the release team is that the
secretary's interpretation of the DFSG is incorrect and the requirement in
the DFSG that source be available does not apply to firmware blobs on the
grounds
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
determined by the secretary,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
Saying that we honor the social contract and then going ahead and doing
the opposite perpetuates the kind of cognitive dissonance we really do not
need more of.
In both cases (with and without the choice), we're bound by the social
contract and may or
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
Who will be in charge of stating what complies and what doesn't
comply?
As usual, everyone judges on his/her own, and
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments, then he is
behaving in a wholly improper manner with regard to this vote, and frankly I
see
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:43:24PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
- Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
For the GFDL GR, this was even worse: the Secretary decided that “GFDL
is free” required 3:1 while “GFDL without invariant sections is free”
did not. The only reason is that he couldn’t stand the latter proposal
and decided to make it impossible
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in preparing
the ballot.
I would like to feel that, but unfortunately, I
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
* Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant
number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were
grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly. There
wasn't much attempt to compromise or
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:14:34PM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:49:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org
wrote:
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
Yeah Boycotting is silly, that's why I've voted for FD first, my
preferred choices second, the rest third.
So in effect you prefer the options that do not require
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:57:06AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
Probably because noone really understands what they are voting for.
There is too much levels
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:26:08AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:57:06AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a
potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation.
Probably because noone
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:44:20PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
This ballot is nonsense:
a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
lenny to release with DFSG violations AND proprietary firmware
AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote:
For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL
invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified.
Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change the DFSG since the DFSG
doesn't allow things which can't be modified
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Debian Project Secretary secret...@debian.org (13/12/2008):
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
= === = === === = === === ==
Voting period starts 00:00:01
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
The title of ballot option 5 is a complete fabrication on the part of the
Secretary that has nothing to do with its text. If option 5 had actually
said what the title claims it says, then a different supermajority
requirement might be in order,
- Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com wrote:
I know that some are fixated on the fact that firmware runs on some
other CPU but I don't buy that line of reasoning. If this firmware
business passes then I am going to start hunting down some MAME ROMs
that have lapsed into the public domain.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:56:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I read it as stating that we assume firmwares to be under a DFSG compliant
license that does not violate the GPL when linked into the kernel. The
kernel is GPL and the firmwares may be under a variety of licenses that do
not
54 matches
Mail list logo
