On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 03:54:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> My understanding of the implications of this process (and Kurt is
> authoritative here, of course) is that if you rank NOTA equally with an
> option, that vote is not part of V(A,D) or V(D,A) since neither option is
> preferred
Russ Allbery writes:
> Philip Hands writes:
>
>> The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
>
>> To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
>> desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
>> the above" choice and leave choices you consider
Philip Hands writes:
> The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
> To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
> desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
> the above" choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.
> which to
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>>
>>
>> >> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> >> changes to the constitution.
>>
>> Kurt> I currently fail to see how it
Felix Lechner wrote on 27/03/2022 at 22:30:53+0200:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>
>> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
>> been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
>
> People were confused.
>
> Given the
On 3/28/22 01:30, Felix Lechner wrote:
Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both suffer would be resolved by
a simple redo of the vote with a ballot that carries the appropriate
warning. That is all I asked for.
IMO we shouldn't have voted for this in the first place (for many
reasons, like
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>
> >> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
> >> changes to the constitution.
>
> Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
>
> I think Felix's point is
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> changes to the constitution.
Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota,
People who preferred option 3 would vote
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
> > been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
>
> People were confused.
>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 07:54:25AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does not. I
> guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
yes.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
* Christian Kastner [2022-03-28 07:54]:
The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does
not. I guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
Yes, and this is exactly how I used Option 3 to express my
preference.
Cheers
Timo
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
On 2022-03-28 01:22, Christian Kastner wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-27 19:31, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
>> Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
>> the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
>> votes?
>
> This seems to be inline
Felix Lechner writes:
> I suppose you and Kurt are saying that the denominator in the majority
> calculation is so exactly described that there is no room to read any
> protective spirit into the language of the constitution.
This is what I'm saying. Obviously I can't speak for Kurt.
Debian
On 2022-03-27 19:31, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
> Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> votes?
This seems to be inline with what the proposer intended, though. From
the text of
Hi Russ,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 2:29 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I do not believe you have enough information to make this assertion with
> complete confidence.
That is correct, and I will at this point wait until affected parties,
if any, speak up.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both
Felix Lechner writes:
> Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time for
> rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted that
> option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the constitutional
> protection against changes to the constitution.
The
> Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
> replace the Project Secretary.
>
Let me get this straight --
You (a seconder of the winning option) now believe that we need to stop and
re-open
discussion on a closed matter that the whole project voted on (which I
Hi Kurt,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
> been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
People were confused.
Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time
for rushed
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> > the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> > votes?
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not
felix.lech...@lease-up.com writes:
> I believe the vote should be redone.
> A repeat without Option 3 is needed so that your certified results can
> properly reflect the electorate's position with respect to the question
> posed on the ballot while also honoring our constitutional majority
>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 10:31:44AM -0700, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
> Dear Mr. Secretary,
>
> As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last
> night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these
> tentative results:
>
> > Option 2 defeats Option
Dear Mr. Secretary,
As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last
night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these
tentative results:
> Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 142 - 107) = 35 votes.
> Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 185 - 61) = 124
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
23 matches
Mail list logo
