Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the
proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
required number of seconds returns to K.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence about the correct level.
Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from
MJ Ray wrote:
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence about the correct level.
Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the
proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
required number of seconds, then this
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence
On Saturday 21 March 2009 13:00:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel
it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I
do not have the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially
2008_003 were handled.
Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even
though it is
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
for it.
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
,
debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General
resolutions
Message-ID: 20090325060117.ga19...@powerlinux.fr
References: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
2009035302.ga24...@yellowpig 200903240112.34470
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
quality is obviously
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence about the correct level.
Replace clause c with c) if general
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.
I understand the furstration
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
AMENDMENT START
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:51:37PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project.
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
This theory does not match the project history in any way.
vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes:
And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
recognized as an important viewpoint to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This
would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary,
without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could
you add those to your proposed
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:34AM -0500, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote,
there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do
not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not
active at all. I do not
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can propose amendments
On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net:
Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
a high number of seconds
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x 1). I
think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
sink for the project as a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
I agree. I fail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
PROPOSAL START
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.
Therefore the Debian project
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:56:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.
Neil
--
vorlon We
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general
resolutions.
This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are
deprived. It does not
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.
Neil
--
pixie hermanr_: I never studied german
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
to calculate Q.
Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying 20 out of 1000
should
On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus..
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=-
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=-
56 matches
Mail list logo
