Hi,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com (15/12/2008):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html
Let's quote for people following at home:
| So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would
| prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
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
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081214 23:01]:
Option 1 is either meaningless or an
override of a delegate decision, but the ballot doesn't reflect this.
As Option 1 doesn't say it overrides a delegate decision, I read it as a
position statement of the day.
Option 4 looks equivalent
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 00:31 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
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
= === = === ===
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:13:23AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
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
Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my
vote?
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100
Message-Id: 200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl
Thanks,
FJP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:15:28 +0100]:
Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my
vote?
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100
Message-Id: 200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl
I can't check, but I can tell you that apparently nobody else has
received
Hi,
just out of curiosity (somehow I'm affected :) ):
When do you plan to provide us with the results of the vote that was
supposed to end 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, 14th Dec, 2008?
In the past (IIRC) it was always nicely a few minutes after the vote
ended, at least a preliminary result /
[Loïc Minier]
[ 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.
This choice is actually about delaying Lenny, and not so much about
reaffirming the social contract. The
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:37:25PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
If the kernel team, instead of letting Ben Hutchings's patches languish
in the BTS, were to upload a fixed linux-2.6, and the release team were
to hint it into lenny, I would change my vote.
It has to be tested first, then packaged
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:59:01PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I read it as a reference to the second paragraph of Section 7.2. Notice the
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:29 +0200]:
The only constitutional way to get rid of the Secretary without his consent is
for the DPL to fail to reappoint him, which would automatically mean (since
I'm
assuming that the Secretary does not go willingly) that a replacement
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:45:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
In both cases (with and without the choice), we're bound by the social
contract and may or may not diverge in practice. This choice doesn't
have any practical impact and doesn't change any rule or project
opinion.
I agree with
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:33:27PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
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
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own
proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the release lenny options
need [3:1] supermajority where the very same vote didn't need it in the
past ?
From a rigorous
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:15:28AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my
vote?
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100
Message-Id: 200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl
Looks like the multi-user multi-voterunners multi-votes bug.
(Bcc: -project)
They say forking in a Free Software project should only be done as a
last resort, but that it is important that such option is always
available. It's very sad we've come to this point with this vote...
If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and, in
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the
numerous problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm
*really* not happy with that, and
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho antti-juh...@kaijanaho.fi writes:
Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary
cannot
be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Is there someone on the plane here to do what's needed with the
secretary? If the DPL isn't willing to take any action here (and I'm
really annoyed that despite repeated questions about it he never showed
up in the
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:54:30PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
As long as there is no clear and unambiguous violation of the constitution
in
the Secretary's actions,
As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled in
contravention of the Standard Resolution
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:34 +0200]:
But your interpretation is certainly possible. Of course, that just means
it's up to the Secretary to rule which (if either) is correct :)
Brilliant.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho antti-juh...@kaijanaho.fi writes:
Doesn't it occur to you that there might be a reason why the Secretary cannot
be removed by GR or by the Leader's whim?
Actually, the Secretary *can* be removed by a GR. The GR must of
course amend the Constitution at the same time to
If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and,
in particular, with the resulting ballot and its 7 options, I invite
you to participate in this unofficial vote and, optionally, to show
your discontent by ranking Further Discussion above all other options
in the official
devo...@vote.debian.org devo...@vote.debian.org (15/12/2008):
digraph Results {
ranksep=0.25;
Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49 [
style=filled , fontname=Helvetica, fontsize=10 ];
Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49 -
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569
[ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved
[ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569
[ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved
[ ] Choice 2:
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is
to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in
Debian.
That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the
mail you replied to,
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:32:40 +0200]:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569
[ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 07:32:40PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569
[ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 03:49:14PM +, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own
proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the release lenny options
need [3:1] supermajority where the
(Adding -project and including full quote of dato's reply (excluding
signature) as that was not sent to that list.)
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote
is to play into the hands of those who don't want any
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
problems with it were fixed, and it was
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may
appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement
between them?
I believe this only applies in the context of 7.2 (replacing the
secretary). This was discussed
- Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org wrote:
I disagree. What would be 3:1 (to date) is to decide that such bugs
aren't RC. The funding documents don't enforce the release team to
release without a single known DFSG-related issue, unless I'm deeply
mistaken. A $suite-ignore tag is _NOT_
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq
4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
firmware as a
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]:
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote
is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware
support in Debian.
That is not true, as it is (hopefully
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]:
I believe developers, and particularly those holding key positions,
should not ignore other developers even if their concerns don't come
^^
Er, should make an effort not to; I think the difference is important.
in with a wrapping
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
The winners are:
Option 2 Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
leading to a new proposal.
which, aiui was the original resolution, namely:
The Debian Project recognizes that many
On Monday 15 December 2008 12:09:28 Frans Pop wrote:
I also call on all Debian Developers to *not* vote in this poll.
I must be missing something: is there some percieved harm in Debian
Developers voting on an *unofficial poll*?
--
Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]:
Well, you'll have to understand that I'm not going to stop doing
something which I don't believe to be wrong just because a fellow
developer asks me to.
I retract this paragraph. It was written in the first pass of the reply,
before I my sat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To: debian-proj...@lists.debian.org, debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Date: 2008-12-15T20:59:50+
Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
This is an unofficial vote, but at least it will be easy to vote in.
If
FD wins in the official one, and depending on the
John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org (15/12/2008):
I support the right or priviledge of a researcher to run a poll on the
topic of their choosing. I further support the right or priviledge of
a Debian Developer to run a poll on a topic associatied with Debian.
I support this specific poll.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:55:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.
[...]
Jurij Smakov - voted the amendment over the original resolution
Not sure how it became an amendment, but option 1
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
I got what you mean: the poll does not give an option for people who
were discontent, *not with the direction in which the tags were
applied (leave firmware in Lenny), but with the tags being applied
for these issues without consultation*.
For what
On 16/12/08 at 06:55 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
The winners are:
Option 2 Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
leading to a new proposal.
which, aiui was the original resolution,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:30:57PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Keep up the work.
Ditto; thanks dato!
... and while I'm still pondering whether to even blog about it or
not, this is a nice place where to stress that Dato even made the
right proposal way before the current messy vote was ready
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
You missed one point:
Excluding votes where more than one
option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
following results:
Option 1: 93
Option 2: 90
Option 3: 61
Option 4: 12
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
satisfying.
* Bas Wijnen (wij...@debian.org) [081216 00:37]:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
think some additional clarity around
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:35:44PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
If more people do share your concerns, though, maybe abandoning the poll
would be the right thing. If it's only you, I can't but offer all my
explanations above, assert that they're true, and hope they can bring us
somewhere.
I
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:45:30AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
You're saying that FD means the release team will simply continue to
ignore the DFSG?
Please stop your FUD. The release team doesn't ignore the DFSG.
Did you read the next sentence? I'm confused with this mail, I don't
think I
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of the explanations
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Whether the current plan is ignoring the DFSG is not something that FD
decides one way or the other, so voting FD doesn't mean agreeing with
that statement. (For example, I personally don't think the release team
is ignoring the DFSG now, and I find your
On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.
...
Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
I'm not too surprised by this. I think it's entirely logically
consistent to second something then
On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
You missed one point:
Excluding votes where more than one
option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
following results:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I suspect this is because the obvious please, dear deity, stop talking
about things constantly and just do them vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1,
so I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3
59 matches
Mail list logo
