Ron r...@debian.org 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
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Ron r...@debian.org 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
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Ron r...@debian.org 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
Michael Goetze mgoe...@mgoetze.net 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
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”.)
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org 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
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
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. The
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org 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
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
Because not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong)
opinions on which are more and which are less desirable is still a
valid position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.
It's fine to rank options you prefer further discussion to, because
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
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
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es [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
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 Discussion
as
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.
You
* Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es [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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
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
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... Sometimes
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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,
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
* 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 care about
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es 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
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 options
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
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 should
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
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 resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
[switching to -vote only, since this is about the process of voting]
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
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 voted on?
Because it can potentially
32 matches
Mail list logo
