On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It seems that you think anyone who hasn't followed the discussion
for the past year doesn't deserve a vote.
No. Anyone who does not have a clue about what is going on
does not deserve a say in the decision.
That's
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It seems that you think anyone who hasn't followed the discussion
for the past year doesn't deserve a vote.
No. Anyone who does not have a clue about what is going on
does not deserve a say in the decision.
That's
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 07:53:54PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On a related note, I'm a little bothered about the result. Obviously
144:16 was a win. But only 160 people voted, at most 20% of developers and
probably more like 15%.
Huh? From http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002,
]
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
are trying to convince
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 07:53:54PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On a related note, I'm a little bothered about the result. Obviously
144:16 was a win. But only 160 people voted, at most 20% of developers and
probably more like 15%.
Huh? From http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002,
]
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:56:02 -0400, Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents
of some option to do a fair bit of the
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
are trying to convince
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
are trying to
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
influence on how
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
are trying to convince
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
influence on how things are done -- we are supposed to be the
How much effort do you
Manoj == Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
Manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have
any influence
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
influence on how
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
are trying to convince
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the
proponents of some option to do a fair bit of the work
necessary to provide me with the information I need to
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The idea is that non-voting geeks don't need to care about this
vote, anyway. All of the changes we're making are procedural, not
structural. Both the quorum changes and the supermajority changes should
have the same result as the
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:25:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
through the GR and
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The idea is that non-voting geeks don't need to care about this
vote, anyway. All of the changes we're making are procedural, not
structural. Both the quorum changes and the supermajority changes should
have the same result as the
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:25:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
through the GR and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:36:23AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
*good* thing?
You can't actively block a vote using the quorum mechanism. If you want
to do that, you need
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:47:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
*don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
Requiring
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:36:23AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
*good* thing?
You can't actively block a vote using the quorum mechanism. If you want
to do that, you need
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
through the GR and understand it. I'm amazed at how little
explanation there has been
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read through
the GR and understand it. I'm amazed at how little explanation there has
been aimed at the
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
turnout is low, in
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I heard that new Australian citizens
are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
jury duty and voting.
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
may be in your best
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:23:28PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
*don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate
Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
*good* thing? If I'm not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:33AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Why would rendering us unable to
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest in
the
Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said
Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have
Buddha == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
received. That has bad properties which can discourage some voters when
participation is
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:42:32AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
received. That has bad
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
received. That has bad properties which can discourage some voters when
participation is
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
amendment. This mechanism causes the Condorcet winner/ideal
democratic winner to lose under certain contrived circumstances. (They
are rather contrived,
Buddha Buck said:
The proposers of this amendment also feel that it is worthy to drop
from consideration any other option that is not approved by a minimum
number of voters
Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
amendment. This mechanism causes the Condorcet
40 matches
Mail list logo
