MJ Ray writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I support Ian. I do not second yet because I think the secretary has
> ruled it out of order.
My procedural proposal is withdrawn, because the condition for doing
so (what is now H appearing on the ballot) h
2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman :
> And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who
> wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real
> ways.
This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose.
I support Ian. I do not second yet
> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes:
Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (
The CFV was not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Sam has decided to cut short this process. We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago. This is very short.
I still think the timeline is
Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> > Ian, please don't.
>
> Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
> mail I'm replying to. Whi
Michael Lustfield writes:
> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on poor behavior by
> some individuals instead of being based on the active efforts of those trying
> to
> improve the end result (following the vote). I do not believe the latter
> should
> be punished for
Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> Ian, please don't.
Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this proposal by
Ian to proceed, the "reasoning" paragraph that followed is not rightly
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:21:20 -0500
Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> [...]
> So far I've stayed away from writing on the list, since I think it has
> been very verbose and I find that tiresome.
>
> I'm tired of this GR already and in my heart, I wish I could just vote
> and be done with it.
>
>
On 19-12-03 11 h 15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has
> IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we
> can make a version which combines
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:24:36PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Gerardo Ballabio writes:
>
> > Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> > before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> > and will agree to whatever formal step is required
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Vernon :
>
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> >> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>
> I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
> from Sam by now.
>
> >>> Does anyone truly believe that
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> and will agree to whatever formal step is required to get it in.
It would be helpful if Sam and/or Kurt would confirm or
Russ Allbery writes:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
from Sam by now.
>>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>>> to statements of principles
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
>
> Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that
Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that he
plans to start the vote on the
On 2019/12/04 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into question the
> legitimacy of the process.
>
> I think you are wrong here. How can one know where to rank option G when
> it's
> clearly incomplete. I don't know if I like it or not.
please stop sending me emails….
> On 04 Dec 2019, at 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
>> that the vote is called to early.
>>
>> They can vote FD
On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, stating
> the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the
> observed fact that it started no less than five years ago.
Gunnar,
I very much disagree with this view.
On 12/3/19 6:40 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And if something is
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
> that the vote is called to early.
>
> They can vote FD above other options.
> And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
> would send a clear
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on
> *this* GR has started only a month ago.
>
> A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a
> ballot that is likely to be so contentions.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> [ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]
>
> Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > I have been proposing that
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:40:57PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
> or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
> for a vote.
I (mostly) missed this part busy preparing an event...
> I agree that
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
>> deep into this discussion?
> Evidently someone truly believes there is
Sean Whitton writes:
> Russ, could you chime in here -- do you still think that starting on the
> 8th would give enough time to people who might be away from the PGP keys
> during the holiday season, or would we be cutting it tight?
> (I am almost never away from my own PGP subkeys so I don't
[ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ]
Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal. I need a few more days
Sam Hartman writes:
> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
> that the vote is called to early.
>
> They can vote FD above other options.
> And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
> would send a clear message that we should develop options based on
I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
that the vote is called to early.
They can vote FD above other options.
And in this specific case, voting G>FD> other options
would send a clear message that we should develop options based on G.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:46:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> >
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> I agree that all the useful options seem to be on the ballot, and I look
> forward to see what comes out. I would prefer that we didn't start
> something that looks like meta-discussing options,
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> >
> > Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
>
> Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
>
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think we can use the constitutional process to delay this, to make
I feel that the air in -vote has been getting very heavy in the last day
or so, and I was quite happy that Sam opted to cut the pain short and go
for a vote.
I
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> 2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems
Ian> GR is overturned. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
This was not a DPL decision.
This was a decision of an author of a proposal on the ballot.
So I don't think this is a decision that can be
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> > reasonably points out is desirable. Russ suggested a voting perio
Hello,
On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 04:15PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
> reasonably points out is desirable. Russ suggested a voting period
> starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible [2],
> which probably means a call
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has
IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we
can make a version which combines
36 matches
Mail list logo
