On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
for
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
perfectly correct.
Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
deciding this
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments,
then he is behaving in a wholly improper manner
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
--
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
== == = = == ===
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
I would
* Ean Schuessler (e...@brainfood.com) [081217 14:53]:
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force
Hi,
This whole set of discussions and proposals started a couple of
months ago, when concerns were raised about firmware blobs, dfsg
violations, and the release. This, after a round of disuccion, led to
three proposals on how the release should be conducted, in view of
firmware blobs
- Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your
*interpretation* of the foundation
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq 4. We
give priority to the timely release of Etch over
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
This ballot is nonsense:
a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
lenny to release with DFSG violations AND proprietary firmware
AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
The way
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
different things, is completely confusing,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The way that we achive such combinations using condorcet is to
propose such combinations as options intheir own right; and then have
people vote on the combination option along with simple options.
Or do separate votes...
There
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in preparing
the ballot.
I
WESTFLOOR
Stirbei Voda 53-55, 010103 Bucuresti; TEL 021 3182125; FAX 021 3111456;
Mobil: 0740.001.101
PARDOSELI PVC FORBO TARKETT
Oferta covor pvc SafeS
Pardoseala trafic intens, antibicrobiana si antiaderapanta
Pret covor pvc SafeS8.7 euro/mp + tva
Domenii
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if that is on purpose or a
honest mistake, but I am assuming
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a developer statement about the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Seems liek there was plenty of time to change things, and add
some of the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
think some additional clarity around that would have been very helpful.
Not really. I think that the
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
* Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant
number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were
grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly. There
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
have made this whole conflict easier to
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The way that we achive such combinations using condorcet is to
propose such combinations as options intheir own right; and then have
people vote on the combination option along with simple options.
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
Have we not been discussing this for weeks now? Related options
belong on the same ballot. Not doing so allows for strategic voting to
game the issue. This is not really an opinion piece, this is
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Basically, to declare this option as requiring a 3:1 majority assumes
an answer to precisely the question that's being disputed, and I don't
think that falls under the purview of the secretary. The
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I also
think that placing all related proposals on a single ballot is
relevant, it prevents an easy exploit of the voting system by simply
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, David Weinehall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes:
Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've been talking with
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
that an option conflicts with a foundation
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:12:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
I would think the explicit overriding or removal of parts of foundation
documents aka changing them as I read it in the constitution (but
apparently my interpretation differs from yours).
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Basically, to declare this option as requiring a 3:1 majority assumes
an answer to precisely the question that's being disputed, and I don't
think that falls under
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
I am not sure how even choice 1 is over riding that decision. Do
you believe that the release team, despite their protestations, is
bundling DFSG violatons into main? If the release team is releasing
only free stuff, then option 1 is
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And other people are not comfortable with you claiming a power that is
not grounded in the constitution: namely, the power to declare that a
ballot option needs supermajority, even if it is not a motion to
directly amend or supersede a foundation
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled
in contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires
that new ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an
outstanding GR
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
to the results being gamed.
This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the
issues are
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 04:58:26PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why is having an omnibus vote now, and a vote on option #4 and
option #6 in January any worse than arbitarily splitting votes? (We
could stipulate that actions on the january votes apply only after
lenny releases, to
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
I am not sure how even choice 1 is over riding that decision. Do
you believe that the release team, despite their protestations, is
bundling DFSG violatons into main? If the release team is
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to
All of these issues should have been resolved in the discussion
period. Sadly, they were not. Is there any constitutional way
to do it over and resolve the issues at the appropriate time?
For example, could the secretary cancel the vote if either (a)
the GR alone, or (b) the GR and all
Le Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:15:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
So, while the power set of the options is not feasible, we could
have a slew of options combining the various proposed options, if
people wanted to vote on a compatible set of options.
Hi Manoj,
I am affraid I
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:45:51AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
A serious license problem could potentially be every bit as disruptive and
expensive to our users as a technical problem. I think this factor is
really what the discussion is about and why release continues to be a
sticking point
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:45:54 -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
the
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, thanks for not flaming here; it was pleasantly surprising
to see civil discussion on this topic.
Where there's ambiguity about whether a proposer intended an amendment vs. a
stand-alone proposal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
to the results being gamed.
This is an hypothetical case you're
On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au
wrote:
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So it boils down to this: are the issue orthogonal, or are they
just different solutions to the same issue? I have presented my
argument for why I think they are the same; can you explain why those
arguments do not hold, and these are
51 matches
Mail list logo
