Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Which issues would those be, then?
I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
three:
1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Which issues would those be, then?
I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
Not really. Messages like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
Not really. Messages like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of
the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble
is partly the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not
synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b)
definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the
consensus was
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.31.0533 +0100]:
Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus.
Ah, if this is the misunderstanding: the infamous 80/20 rule
(Pareto's principle) in this case meant: 20% of the participants of
the discusionss make 80% of the noise.
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]:
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions
of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this
trouble is partly the DPL's fault.
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]:
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions
of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general
agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment
and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned
objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to
drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough
consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a
practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do
agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of
stronger
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]:
Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the
opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful.
This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number
of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over
again.
If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making
Given that there's no easy way to get at the arguments for an
against this vote, other than wading through hundreds of -vote
mails, I cannot cast a vote.
I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold
or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ 0 ] Choice 2: The
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time
that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve
that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work.
Hey, you should have seconded my
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold
or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot
suggests:
It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL
decision
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not
subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can
see is that is available from the web archives. I can not
find anything about this, so personally I think it is
Hi
Thanks for pointing me to information about this vote. I obviously
missed some parts of the debian-vote list, as I thought that newest
was listed first.
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to
also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1211 +0100]:
Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of
time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to
resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to
work.
Hey, you should have
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]:
I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be,
but we'll see.
It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it
wasn't accepted.
0/0 was not accepted. Joey (Hess), was
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ 0 ] Choice 2: The
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect.
In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the
number of cast votes and thus makes
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect.
In voting systems with a
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1736 +0100]:
In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the
number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to
reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please
correct me if I am wrong.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:57:46 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]:
But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting.
And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as
effect.
In voting systems
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:41:26 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options
equal?
Yes, your name is recorded as someone who voted. Has no effect
on quorum or the outcome, though.
manoj
--
QOTD: I haven't
Where's the vote.debian.org page?
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:08:05 +0200, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Where's the vote.debian.org page?
It shall be put up when someone has time for it. The proposers
have not yet provided the wml for the vote page, nor their idea of
the ballot; I have a monday deadline, and the
Hi,
Please note that the voting period has been abbreviated to one
week.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Saturday, 28 Oct 2006
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 03 Nov 2006
The following ballot is for voting on a immediate
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686
[ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold
pending a vote
[ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands
32 matches
Mail list logo
