Felix Lechner writes:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
>> yes, I largely agree
> Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
> constitutional amendments should be based on sound
Hi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
> yes, I largely agree
Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
constitutional amendments should be based on sound premises.
As to the point
Felix Lechner writes:
> The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
> prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It is the opposite
> of what you wrote.
I think the detail that you may be missing is that under Wouter's system
for extending the discussion
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:43 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Maybe you could
> try rephrasing in the hope that I may understand a different version of
> the question better?
The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't understand the question. That system does not currently exist,
>> and therefore this could not have happened
> Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that deductive
> logic misses key
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I don't understand the question.
> That system does not currently exist, and therefore this could
> not have happened
Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that
deductive logic misses key insights. [1]
More broadly,
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 3:53 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> makes it very easy to extend it This will probably happen for all
>> but the most urgent and uncontroversial GRs.
> Didn't we just see the opposite?
I don't understand the question. This statement is in the
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 3:53 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> makes it very easy to extend it
> This will probably happen for all but the most urgent and
> uncontroversial GRs.
Didn't we just see the opposite? In the most recent referendum, the
decisive argument for shortening was the
It looks like discussion of this option has died down, so now is probably
a good time for me to express my personal opinion for why I prefer my
option, now that it hopefully won't skew any of the discussion from
others.
I understand your analysis for why you don't want a fixed time limit on
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> This analysis is very sensitive to the percentage of people in
Russ> the minority who would be willing to delay the vote. I think
Russ> a more likely number (probably still too high) would be at
Russ> most 10% of the voters (a quarter of
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I also think this system makes the voting process more open to procedural
manipulation than my proposal (although this is more a gut feeling than
anything concrete, and it's arguable), and essentially forecloses the
project's ability to take any timely action without
Sam Hartman writes:
>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Wouter> Can you shed some light on your opinion here? I've tried to
> Wouter> build an option that I hope can achieve some form of
> Wouter> consensus, and I would like to know whether I have succeeded
> Wouter> in
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> Can you shed some light on your opinion here? I've tried to
Wouter> build an option that I hope can achieve some form of
Wouter> consensus, and I would like to know whether I have succeeded
Wouter> in doing so. I don't think I'll
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 08:41:15PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Interesting:-)
> I'd have to think hard about whether to rank that proposal above or
> below FD.
> I prefer Russ's option, but given your goals I agree this sounds like a
> good way to achieve them.
Can you shed some light on your
Hi Nikolaus,
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:20:13AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by people
> > who do not support that option will usually result in a cluttered
> > ballot, with various options
hi,
i'm just following along, so please excuse my brief comments from the
sidelines...
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:15:18AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Wouter and I are going to disagree on this, but I actually think that
> the work I did during the latest systemd vote significantly helped move
>
> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath writes:
Nikolaus> On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by
>> people who do not support that option will usually result in a
>> cluttered ballot, with various options that are
On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by people
> who do not support that option will usually result in a cluttered
> ballot, with various options that are almost but not quite the same
> thing, and options that are irrelevant noise
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 03:53:38PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 10/24/21 2:01 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 6. The project leader may, at any point in the process, set the
> > discussion period to any length between 1 and 3 weeks, except that
> > they may not do so in a way that
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> However, the problem I see with strict timings that cannot
Wouter> be extended in any possible scenario is that we may end up
Wouter> with a situation where one option cannot be fleshed out
Wouter> entirely due to lack of time. I
On 10/24/21 2:01 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
6. The project leader may, at any point in the process, set the
discussion period to any length between 1 and 3 weeks, except that
they may not do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end
within 48 hours of when this change is
On second thought...
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 06:54:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> With this process, we could also default the minimum discussion time to
> be much shorter (say, one week or so); then if there is much to discuss,
> after 6 days or so someone could suggest "we're clearly not
Hi Sam,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 12:49:57PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However there is one area of agreement, and I'll focus there.
> I agree that if a sufficient part of the project wants to continue the
> discussion, we should be able to do that.
> I just don't see how to accomplish that in a
On 10/23/21 1:49 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I agree that if a sufficient part of the project wants to continue the
discussion, we should be able to do that.
I just don't see how to accomplish that in a way that is better than
what Russ proposes without being open to abuse.
I think a great next
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> I hear and agree with the argument against such a procedure;
Wouter> having a way to delay the vote which everyone can trigger
Wouter> opens the system up to abuse, which could allow the vote to
Wouter> be delayed indefinitely if
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:22:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To fully achieve what Wouter is calling for would therefore *also* require
> a constitutional change. It's not a preservation of the existing status
> quo. I know Wouter knows that, but I wanted to make sure it was
In general, I understand the reasoning for having an option for longer
discussions. However, I see risks too.
On 10/22/21 12:42 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
a vote to recall the project leader.
This is an interesting corner case. I don't think it needs a special
case under the current
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:23 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> To fully achieve what Wouter is calling for would therefore *also* require
> a constitutional change.
As a proponent of a living process, I would welcome such an
alternative on the ballot.
Russ's motivation strikes me as extremely
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 22/10/2021 at 19:42:13+0200:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at
> 2021-10-22T19:42:07+0200 using RSA]]
> Hi all,
>
> Let me start by apologizing for taking this long to send this email. The
> attentive reader will have noticed my name in
Thank you for raising this, Wouter!
I'm not going to reply directly to the substance of this argument right
now because Wouter already knows my opinion and I think having the rest of
the project weigh in would be much more useful. Part of the goal here is
to come up with a system that's more
Hi all,
Let me start by apologizing for taking this long to send this email. The
attentive reader will have noticed my name in Russ' original draft as
one of the people who reviewed it. When Russ sent his initial proposal,
I started drafting a large response that I lost due to a silly mistake
on
31 matches
Mail list logo
