Re: Debian-EM Joint Committee

1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be distinct from the

Re: ballot bounced

It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around for at least a year from voting or is this a bug? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 03:41:18 + From: [EMAIL

Re: And the winner is...

"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jason As was I.. Jason If this was anything but debian this would void the results Jason of the election. We could choose to do that too. However, it seems kind of silly. We'd have to spend another three weeks voting, and we'd

Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending Branden automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS Branden or any other subject). Branden If he does not comply within 24 hours of ratification

Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel

Raphael == Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raphael Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns Raphael écrivait: Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever reasons, but it

Actually causing a constitutional GR to happen

So, it seems that several people are in favor of action on this issue and no one really seems to be objecting. Does someone want to formally propose a GR I can read and second? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: QUESTIONNAIRE: Debian Project Leadership

Martin == Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-02-02 Martin 17:58]: To that end, I am soliciting specific feedback by means of the questionnaire below. If you have perspectives and opinions you would like to

Re: February 17th Voting GR draft

Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2003 Results

Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows Matthew one to identify one's vote is flawed. Since all Matthew components of the string to be fed to md5sum are chosen Matthew by the secretary or known well in

Voting on voting systems amendment

I seem to recall that Manoj started a discussion period for the voting fixes GR. There seemed to be some discussion but no significant proposed changes and the points raised during the discussion seem from my standpoint to have been answered. What needs to happen now so we can actually vote on

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD votetallying

Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters Andrew that B voters can cause D beats A. But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D,

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction

Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Raul Miller wrote: Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum.

Re: Problems with the majority requirement

Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew 3a. Due to the inherent meaning of the default option, Andrew voters will typically not consider it especially Andrew undesirable (unless they strongly feel that a revote will Andrew create tension or damage Debian's

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD votingmethodsGR

Manoj == Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manoj On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt Manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any influence

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD votingmethodsGR

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with the information I need

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of Branden voters will, even within a slate of options preferred Branden over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively. Branden I ground this on the observation

Re: keep non-free proposal

Zenaan == Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zenaan On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote: Zenaan Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to Zenaan distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being Zenaan software but instead a unique concept

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas We have not be taken away from work by the present Thomas discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second, Thomas Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to Thomas be part of this discussion. I

Re: Mailing list behaviour was: Candidate questions/musings

Anand == Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anand I, personally, suspect that the unfriendliness of Debian is Anand behind a lot of requests for smaller mailing lists seen by Anand listmaster these days. A lot of people don't bother to use Anand the main mailing lists anymore

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find it a less powerful and

Re: Second Call for votes: General resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003

Graham == Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Graham If you don't feel like you can vote for any of the given Graham choices, why did you not participate in the discussions Graham prior to the vote? Why did you not propose something that Graham you were comfortable voting on?

Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64

Michael == Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael This last one could be considered on-topic for -vote in Michael the context of this unholy GR, but I rather think it's Michael abuse of it, as we have a release team for this kind of Michael issue. It is not abuse of

Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.

Eduard == Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eduard #include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004, Eduard 07:16:04PM]: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get

Re: Debian-EM Joint Committee

1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be distinct from the

Re: status report -- vote recommendations committee

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul [Note: debian shouldn't wait for this group, on any pressing Raul issues. For the moment, we probably want to avoid combining Raul amendment and final votes in the same voting message, but Raul what we've got is basically good

Re: ballot bounced

It looks like ~maor/dinstall/debian-keyring.gpg hasn't changed since April 2000. Is the intent to prevent maintainers who are not around for at least a year from voting or is this a bug? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 03:41:18 + From: [EMAIL

Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates

Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:24:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson Ben wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:45:58PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:31:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: * What do you think

Re: And the winner is...

Jason == Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jason As was I.. Jason If this was anything but debian this would void the results Jason of the election. We could choose to do that too. However, it seems kind of silly. We'd have to spend another three weeks voting, and we'd

Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending Branden automated mails to other developers (regarding the DDTS Branden or any other subject). Branden If he does not comply within 24 hours of ratification of

Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled

[Hopefully we can finish this discussion quickly or move to personal mail. The issue at hand no longer matters. ] Glenn == Glenn McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn By the same argument i should be able to opt out of Glenn recieving mail from the bug tracking system about any

Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled

Raphael == Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raphael Stop being stupid, our goal is to provide a good OS for Raphael all our users, this does include having *good* localized Raphael content whereever it's possible. For this the maintainer Raphael may want to review the

Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel

Raphael == Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raphael Le Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:34:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns Raphael écrivait: Obviously Debian's the sort of project where there're going to be a bunch of people who won't accept that, for whatever reasons, but it

Re: Proposed General Resolution : IRC as a Debian communication channel

Peter == Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Does it or does it not say that there is a irc-channel only Peter for developers approved by the project? It's unclear to me whether it says or does not say this.

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns Branden wrote: On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: OTOH, so

Actually causing a constitutional GR to happen

So, it seems that several people are in favor of action on this issue and no one really seems to be objecting. Does someone want to formally propose a GR I can read and second?

Re: Actually causing a constitutional GR to happen

Jordi == Jordi Mallach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jordi On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw Jordi wrote: Uhm, what issue are you talking about? Jordi Smith/Condorcet vote stuff, most probably. There is other Jordi stuff pending, tho. Correct; sorry about

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns Raul Dominates invites non-technical comparisons between the Raul proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to Raul avoid that term if possible. Except that

Re: QUESTIONNAIRE: Debian Project Leadership

Martin == Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-02-02 Martin 17:58]: To that end, I am soliciting specific feedback by means of the questionnaire below. If you have perspectives and opinions you would like to

Re: February 17th Voting GR draft

Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual

Re: February 17th Voting GR draft

Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Anthony On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck Anthony wrote: Sam Hartman wrote: Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion? I think that, under the proposal

Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2003 Results

Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows Matthew one to identify one's vote is flawed. Since all Matthew components of the string to be fed to md5sum are chosen Matthew by the secretary or known well in

Voting on voting systems amendment

I seem to recall that Manoj started a discussion period for the voting fixes GR. There seemed to be some discussion but no significant proposed changes and the points raised during the discussion seem from my standpoint to have been answered. What needs to happen now so we can actually vote on

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John we have two examples of where per-option quorum is flawed: John Example 1: John 2 options + default, R=15. 15 voters. 10 vote ABD, 5 vote John BDA John result: Condorcet would select option A Proposed would

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters Andrew that B voters can cause D beats A. But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D,

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction

Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Raul Miller wrote: Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum.

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction

John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a John pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable John buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see John

Re: Problems with the majority requirement

Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew 3a. Due to the inherent meaning of the default option, Andrew voters will typically not consider it especially Andrew undesirable (unless they strongly feel that a revote will Andrew create tension or damage Debian's

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you John are worried about? Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest in the

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

Buddha == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Sam Hartman wrote: John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack John of interest in a particular response to an issue that you John

Re: Final call for votes for the Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD voting methods GR

Manoj == Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manoj Hi, In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of Manoj writing, the polls shall close for the voting GR. The Manoj quorum has already been met, if you are interested. Wait, I thought quorum only mattered for the

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

Manoj == Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manoj On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt Manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any influence

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with the information I need

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere Branden voting. (Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further Branden discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Branden I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of Branden voters will, even within a slate of options preferred Branden over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively. Branden I ground this on the observation

Re: non-free and users?

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raul And I think that that statement has enough truth to it that Raul even if we retain non-free [for example, if my proposal wins Raul on the upcoming ballot], we should seriously consider Raul updating policy to incorporate

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MJ There is no other way for something to be part of the debian MJ distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed MJ list stands. It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is.

Re: Amendment of removal of non-free proposal 20040121-13

Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I second this proposal. Raul [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call Raul for seconds is not in reply to any other post.] Raul This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on Raul the 19th: Raul

Re: keep non-free proposal

Zenaan == Zenaan Harkness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zenaan On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 06:44, Raul Miller wrote: Zenaan Is there a possibility for a proposal to be put forward to Zenaan distinguish documentation (and licenses) as not being Zenaan software but instead a unique concept

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas We have not be taken away from work by the present Thomas discussion, first, it's part of our work, and second, Thomas Debian is a volunteer organization. Nobody is obliged to Thomas be part of this discussion. I

Re: Mailing list behaviour was: Candidate questions/musings

Anand == Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anand I, personally, suspect that the unfriendliness of Debian is Anand behind a lot of requests for smaller mailing lists seen by Anand listmaster these days. A lot of people don't bother to use Anand the main mailing lists anymore

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

I'd like to agree with the people who say that the proposed editorial corrections destroy the style of the social contract. The proposed new social contract has similar effect to the current one. I'm not able to determine if the effect is identical, but even if so, I find it a less powerful and

Has the asset tracking GR been reviewed by a lawyer

Hi. I'll admit that I've been rather out of the loop of late, but I do try to at least research GRs and make as informed of a decision as I can. I was unable to find any legal review of the proposed changes to the constitution. The idea of a project associated with a single non-profit for

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

I'd be happy to sponsor a resolution that simply adopted the COC as a position statement of the day and asked the appropriate parties to take that as the project's current position. I think the DPL and listmasters can figure out where on the website to put it, and can figure out how to evolve it.

Willing to propose option A

Hi. I prefer option A from the TC ballot to Matthew's proposal. However, I think I prefer no vote to a GR on option A. So, I'm going to hold off to see if Matthew's proposal gets sufficient seconds before doing anything. That said, I respect Matthew's proposal. I believe he is positively

Re: [RFC] Alternative proposal: reaffirm upstream and maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain

Hi. I'd support a proposal that focused on reaffirming the decisions that have already been taken, and it sort of sounds like you're doing that. However, I think your proposal goes significantly further than I'd like. So, I'd rank your proposal significantly below Lucas's proposal. however, if

Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes: Joey Why not just make your proposal be something along the lines Joey of reaffirming the technical decision-making process as it Joey currently stands, from the package maintainers, to the policy, Joey to the TC. It could implicitly or

Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.

Joey == Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes: Joey Charles Plessy wrote: --- The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be

Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain

Arno == Arno Töll a...@debian.org writes: Arno Hi Kurt, Arno On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote: So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715 or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or more of the options into overrding the TC

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

I support this proposal, and if that was intented as a formal proposal I'd probably second. I'd also support: * making this something the TC decides for themselves with your wording as an initial condition I do think rotation in bodies like the TC is really good both for the members' personal

Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

Charles == Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Charles Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it Charles can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of Charles the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say Charles that a GR is unwelcome,

Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive

Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]

Steve, thanks for writing up your note. I strongly agree that Ian's resolution is legitimate. It's not a abuse of process, it's reasonably to bring forward. I also think Charles's amendment is legitimate in the same sense: to say that we as a community do not choose to act as a community in

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Hi. This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I think this is an important issue. My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments you received. If a resolution isn't proposed within a week or so and there isn't some nontrivial ongoing

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sune == Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes: Sune I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression Sune was that - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a Sune good idea - that they should push the thing forward (if no one Sune else does) - but they

Re: Last minute discussion

Hi. thanks for your input. For myself, I definitely appreciate the contributions of all the parties you mentioned, and appreciate your reminder that Debian is a very large community. One important category you didn't mention is all our wonderful upstreams who have given us this great software to

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Don == Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second periods on debian-vote is problematic. Don Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well. Don I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Andreas == Andreas Henriksson andr...@fatal.se writes: Andreas Hello Anthony Towns! Andreas On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Andreas [...] I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few years, and my feeling is that it's better

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Lucas == Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: Lucas Hi, Lucas On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote: Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N most senior members

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

Several people forwarded me copies of the IRC log that Josh pointed to here on the list today in response to my message this morning. I responded to that off-list. I've been debating today whether to respond on-list. I'm not sure this is a good idea, but hey I'm trying my best to be reasoned but

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

This is likely to be my last message on this sub-thread, or at least I'm definitely slowing down responses. Replying to two messages. Matthew == Matthew Vernon matt...@debian.org writes: Matthew Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org writes: On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800,

Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members

Watching other volunteer organizations, I've found that having turnover somewhere between 3-5 years tends to work fairly well. I've seen this in student organizations where the turnover tends to be somewhat encouraged by graduation although in the cases I'm thinking of that did not force the

Not being very involved in the term limits proposal

Hi folks. A few weeks ago I indicated strong interest in helping drive the term limits proposal. I no longer feel comfortable doing that, and also have found something else that is taking up my Debian energy. As a result of that message and some other discussions I gained a much better

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

Lucas == Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: Lucas (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread Lucas over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire Lucas the 2 most senior members - expire the 2-R most senior Lucas members, with R the number of

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

Stefano == Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes: Stefano On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for the reason you give

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

So, let's assume we'd adopted this proposal back in July or so. And then things happened as they did, and we got the same three resignations we did. Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten those same three resignations. I actually argue that it is a feature to encourage the people who resigned to do so.

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

. Stefano On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:12:13PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: For myself I do not like the effects of option 1. [only 3 people on the TC] Stefano Note that it has been proposed to amend option (1) to Stefano remove the transitional measure. I have yet to see Stefano

Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover

Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ian 6. Whenever it becomes the case that (i) the most senior Ian member has been on the committee for at least 6 years; and (ii) Ian it has been at least 4 months since it happened that the Ian at-that-time most senior

Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members

Stefano == Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes: Stefano - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the Stefano first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above Stefano (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation Stefano among them)

Re: Alternative proposal (+call for seconds): Expire 2-R members every year

=== The Constitution is amended as follows: --- --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100 +++ constitution.2-R.txt

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

Russ == Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Russ There's another alternative to using the CTTE, and my Russ understanding is that this was generally the method used prior Russ to the existence of the CTTE, but I'm not sure it's really any Russ better. Russ There are

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

Matthias == Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de writes: Matthias Hi, matt...@bendel.debian.org: I think the TC is a useful last resort where other ways of resolving technical disagreements have failed. Perhaps we should consider having a non-binding mediation group for

Re: call for vote - term limit for the tech-ctte

Jakub == Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: Jakub * Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org, 2014-12-16, 16:55: It would also be nice that already suggested what the wording of the options should be. How about: 1) replace the two oldest members every year 2)

General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution. Since the previous resolution appears dead I'd like to call for seconds on the amendment I made to that resolution as its own resolution. Obviously I'm proposing the option I most favor. If others want to propose the original version

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: Kurt> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> >> Hi. I'd like to call for seconds on the following resolution. >> Since the previous r

Re: General Resolution: Fix Minor Bugs in Constitution

Hi. We still need one more second. --Sam

Re: Strategic Voting Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: Kurt> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: Kurt> One of the problems, and I consider that to be the most Kurt> important one, is about the stratigic vote that you can do. Kurt> For example,

Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves to propose ballot options that are statement-of-the-day-like ballot options not requiring a super-majority when

Re: Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

Fixed, I hope; thanks.

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

Restated to fix comments received. For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous amendment. As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose that we don't fix that, but trust

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: Kurt> I really wish Andreas at least fixed the text of his Kurt> resolution, I really don't want to hold a vote on a text Kurt> that's not clear. So, you're hoping he would state things in terms of a diff or something a lot closer

  1   2   3   4   >