Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Your message dated Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:28:51 +1000 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line close has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2003 13:09:31 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 14 08:09:29 2003 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mx04.gis.net [208.218.130.12] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 19yWd7-000629-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:09:29 -0500 Received: from arf ([67.75.25.91]) by mx04.gis.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:09:26 -0400 Received: from alfie by Arf with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19yWe2-0002qC-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:26 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers X-Mailer: reportbug 2.28 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0400 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED] using From header Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Package: doc-debian Version: 3.0.2 Severity: wishlist There's some odd language in '/usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.txt': 1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer 2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers... ...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows: 3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded. This implies fractional Developers. In line #2 above the author must have meant an integer, (or rather a natural number -- there aren't any negative numbers of Developers), but saying at least leaves room for doubt, especially since line #3 says K isn't rounded! Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it were we'd know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and if it's not rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what. For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or 'whole numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up when counting people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something to the same effect. (Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to amend as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors though.) Hope this helps us become wholly impartial. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux Arf 2.4.21-1-k6 #2 Mon Jun 16 22:19:43 EST 2003 i586 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 210879-done) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Dec 2003 09:59:00 + From aj@azure.humbug.org.au Fri Dec 26 03:59:00 2003 Return-path: aj@azure.humbug.org.au Received: from azure.erisian.com.au [64.235.236.133] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1AZmXp-000344-00; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:38:01 -0600 Received: from aj by azure.erisian.com.au with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AZmRN-00072M-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:31:21 +1000 Received: from aj by cyan with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AZmOx-0006Xs-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:28:51 +1000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: close Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:28:51 +1000 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_15 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_15 X-Spam-Level: yawn
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On 2003-12-05 17:34:47 + Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I advocated was considering the possibility of adding an explanatory footnote for those who do *not* have such training, outside the formal text in question (potentially in another document entirely, probably one without the strict controls necessary for revising the Constitution). You are free to produce whatever commentaries on the constitution you wish, of course, and use your knowledge of maths to explain it to the little people who you think can't understand comparing a calculated real number with the number of developers. I apologise if that's not your position, but I can't understand why else you take issue with it, given you can understand it. Until it is shown that this is not an isolated case of the submitter being wilfully obstructive, I will not agree that this is a bug in the constitution. Developing this on -project or -devel is one way to do that. I think there are better uses of time, though. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:43:56AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I don't want to debate whether there is a functional difference because I think I will be accused of more esoteric math[s] talk and it's not relevant. The phrasing in question here seems accurate and clear enough that you can understand it in its present form. I don't see why having studied for maths degrees should disqualify my request for accuracy. I am able to understand it, yes; I also have a strong foundation in doing formal mathematics, though I haven't used such (in any practical sense) for some while. The phrasing is accurate, and concise - and I *did not advocate changing it*. What I advocated was considering the possibility of adding an explanatory footnote for those who do *not* have such training, outside the formal text in question (potentially in another document entirely, probably one without the strict controls necessary for revising the Constitution). At least I am a user of the affected package, which should count for something. As am I. I fail to see your point; were you trying to imply that only a DD should have an opinion? Perhaps you're right; unfortunately for the assertion that would imply (no DDs have an issue with it), I am one. Which, presumably, means that I count for precisely as much as you do, on the matter. Unless you meant something else, in which case I would ask that you clarify what you did mean. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpqOiG6fxYV2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:00:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-12-04 00:52:17 + Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an annotation of some form, to the effect of [1] Since one can't have fractional developers, and the rule is 'at least', we always round up to the next integer. As previously explained (by Andrew Suffield, I think), that is not what happens. Then I would have to say that we have, in fact, gone far enough into the realms of esoteric math (or pedantry) to have utterly lost any casual reader. In what was are the statements at least real Developers are required, and the one above functionally different? Can you present any number for which one is true, and the other isn't? Or is this arguing over the pedantry we don't round up, which could be rephrased in a number of ways. As someone else pointed out, a requirement of 2/3 majority (or 2/3 quorum, or any other count) doesn't bring the world to an end when the number is not divisible by 3 - but if you're going to claim that this does not have exactly the same effect as applying an integer comparison against ceil(quorum), then I want to know where we departed from the math I grew up learning, or where you came up with a fraction of a developer. Annotations are frequently separated from a document precisely so that the document can be explained in casual terms (for this case, read: not in formal mathematics), without diluting the actual document itself with the explanations. Thus, talking about effectively is not unreasonable; perhaps you would prefer we effectively end up rounding upwards to the next integer? That, at least, would satisfy pedantry while still conveying useful information to the casual reader. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp7ftOz11Pby.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Your message dated Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:04:22 +1000 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#210879: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2003 13:09:31 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 14 08:09:29 2003 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mx04.gis.net [208.218.130.12] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 19yWd7-000629-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:09:29 -0500 Received: from arf ([67.75.25.91]) by mx04.gis.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:09:26 -0400 Received: from alfie by Arf with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19yWe2-0002qC-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:26 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers X-Mailer: reportbug 2.28 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0400 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED] using From header Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Package: doc-debian Version: 3.0.2 Severity: wishlist There's some odd language in '/usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.txt': 1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer 2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers... ...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows: 3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded. This implies fractional Developers. In line #2 above the author must have meant an integer, (or rather a natural number -- there aren't any negative numbers of Developers), but saying at least leaves room for doubt, especially since line #3 says K isn't rounded! Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it were we'd know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and if it's not rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what. For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or 'whole numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up when counting people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something to the same effect. (Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to amend as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors though.) Hope this helps us become wholly impartial. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux Arf 2.4.21-1-k6 #2 Mon Jun 16 22:19:43 EST 2003 i586 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) -- no debconf information --- Received: (at 210879-done) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Nov 2003 04:06:01 + From aj@azure.humbug.org.au Sat Nov 29 22:06:00 2003 Return-path: aj@azure.humbug.org.au Received: from azure.erisian.com.au [64.235.236.133] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1AQIqN-0001Ch-00; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:06:00 -0600 Received: from aj by azure.erisian.com.au with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQIpb-000367-04; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:05:11 +1000 Received: from aj by cyan with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQIoo-0001cM-00; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:04:22 +1000 Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:04:22 +1000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#210879: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=neYutvxvOLaeuPCA Content-Disposition: inline Organisation: Lacking X-PGP: http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/aj_key.asc X-No-CC: Don't Cc me to mailing list posts unless you really have to Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_11_20 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_70,FOOASDF,
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Looks to me like the only reasonable next step, since the user considers it sufficiently important to ask for it to be open/wontfix (which might not be unreasonable), and others insist that it be closed completely (which also might not be unreasonable), is to ask... well, I'd guess the tech-ctty, except that this isn't really a *technical* bug, exactly... FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of justification for why it isn't left open/wontfix, since that is, in fact, what the default state for can't agree on whether it's a bug is really supposed to be, according to my reading of the relevant documents. Remember, it takes two people to play tennis (or, in this case, what appears to be one person, and a whole chorus line on the other side of the court, but the point remains). I really fail to see a compelling reason, for my part, as to why: severity wishlist tags +wontfix won't result in a compromise that is, if not perfect, at least within what we say we'll do. Failing that, the only other answer to resolve it (in any truly final sense, if anything could be final about it) would be for the submitter to convince enough DDs to get a GR into the voting process, for the change. (Okay, that would have to happen anyway, at least before a change could be made, but since the submitter has, in fact, expressed a willingness to compromise on something less wasteful of everyone's time than either probably-spurious GRs, or bug tennis, I find the reply in rather bad form). Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an annotation of some form, to the effect of [1] Since one can't have fractional developers, and the rule is 'at least', we always round up to the next integer. That might also be excessive, but as a footnote which explains the math, rather than as part of the core text, it would make more sense. However, that way may lie the madness of a cluttered document, since the Constitution isn't meant to be a textbook. Maybe we need the Commentaries? Actually, that may not be such a bad idea, given recent issues over things like the DFSG, and the fact that it has taken years for the origional author to clarify the intent while they were being written. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpLg9HWPFuTT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote: FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of justification for why it isn't left open/wontfix, Because there is no problem. We need at least some real number developers is perfectly clear language. If some law requires 2/3 majority to pass a parliament, the world does not come to an end either if the number of representatives is not divisible by 3. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Your message dated Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:58:30 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Leave this bug closed PLEASE
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2003 13:09:31 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 14 08:09:29 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from mx04.gis.net [208.218.130.12]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19yWd7-000629-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:09:29 -0500
Received: from arf ([67.75.25.91]) by mx04.gis.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:09:26
-0400
Received: from alfie by Arf with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19yWe2-0002qC-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:26 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not
integers
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.28
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0400
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using From header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: doc-debian
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
There's some odd language in '/usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.txt':
1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers...
...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows:
3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded.
This implies fractional Developers. In line #2 above the author must
have meant an integer, (or rather a natural number -- there aren't any
negative numbers of Developers), but saying at least leaves room for
doubt, especially since line #3 says K isn't rounded!
Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it were we'd
know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and if it's not
rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what.
For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or 'whole
numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up when counting
people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something to the same
effect.
(Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to amend
as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors though.)
Hope this helps us become wholly impartial.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux Arf 2.4.21-1-k6 #2 Mon Jun 16 22:19:43 EST 2003 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
-- no debconf information
---
Received: (at 210879-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Oct 2003 14:59:19 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 11 09:59:19 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from play.smurf.noris.de [192.109.102.42]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A8LDB-0008Kd-00; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:59:17 -0500
Received: from smurf by play.smurf.noris.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1A8LCQ-0004AX-00; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:58:30 +0200
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:58:30 +0200
From: Smurf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Leave this bug closed PLEASE
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0-gpgme-021125a
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0
tests=none
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
I hesitate to say this, but please actually listen to Please do not
reopen this bug unless you have anything new to add and I think you
should demonstrate consensus on -project that there is a problem.
Thank you.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
A man's home may seem to be his castle on the outside; inside it is more
often his nursery.
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:18:15PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: The other reason to close this report is that the doc debian package can't itself do anything to fix this supposed flaw; it has no authority to modify the constitution. If the constitution needs to be changed, a constitutional amendment is going to be required; until thien this bug can be closed on the grounds that the package is distributing the constitution as it stands today. Mind you, that's why I (somewhat belatedly) reassigned it to project in the first place. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Your message dated Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:45:24 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line There was nothing new in the reopen message
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2003 13:09:31 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 14 08:09:29 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from mx04.gis.net [208.218.130.12]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19yWd7-000629-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:09:29 -0500
Received: from arf ([67.75.25.91]) by mx04.gis.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:09:26
-0400
Received: from alfie by Arf with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19yWe2-0002qC-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:26 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not
integers
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.28
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0400
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using From header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: doc-debian
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
There's some odd language in '/usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.txt':
1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers...
...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows:
3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded.
This implies fractional Developers. In line #2 above the author must
have meant an integer, (or rather a natural number -- there aren't any
negative numbers of Developers), but saying at least leaves room for
doubt, especially since line #3 says K isn't rounded!
Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it were we'd
know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and if it's not
rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what.
For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or 'whole
numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up when counting
people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something to the same
effect.
(Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to amend
as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors though.)
Hope this helps us become wholly impartial.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux Arf 2.4.21-1-k6 #2 Mon Jun 16 22:19:43 EST 2003 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
-- no debconf information
---
Received: (at 210879-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Oct 2003 01:49:01 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 10 20:48:52 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A88sE-0005pj-00; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:48:50 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) with ESMTP id
h9B1jO6e007936
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:45:25 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) id
h9B1jOYB007932;
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:45:24 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.1 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: There was nothing new in the reopen message
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Microsoft Gnus Express, Build 5.1003 (5.10.3)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzbi0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:45:24 -0500
Message-ID:
Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Your message dated Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:05:57 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line There was nothing in the reopen message to demostrate a bug
exists
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Sep 2003 13:09:31 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 14 08:09:29 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from mx04.gis.net [208.218.130.12]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19yWd7-000629-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:09:29 -0500
Received: from arf ([67.75.25.91]) by mx04.gis.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:09:26
-0400
Received: from alfie by Arf with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19yWe2-0002qC-00; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:26 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not
integers
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.28
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0400
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: A Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using From header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_13
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: doc-debian
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
There's some odd language in '/usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.txt':
1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers...
...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows:
3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded.
This implies fractional Developers. In line #2 above the author must
have meant an integer, (or rather a natural number -- there aren't any
negative numbers of Developers), but saying at least leaves room for
doubt, especially since line #3 says K isn't rounded!
Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it were we'd
know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and if it's not
rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what.
For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or 'whole
numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up when counting
people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something to the same
effect.
(Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to amend
as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors though.)
Hope this helps us become wholly impartial.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux Arf 2.4.21-1-k6 #2 Mon Jun 16 22:19:43 EST 2003 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
-- no debconf information
---
Received: (at 210879-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Oct 2003 00:08:50 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 09 19:08:49 2003
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com)
[12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A7kpt-0003wO-00; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:08:49 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) with ESMTP id
h9A05v6e015400
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:05:58 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) id
h9A05vgG015396;
Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:05:57 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.1 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: There was nothing in the reopen message to demostrate a bug exists
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78OsbQ[56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIaxWg1VcjZk[hBQ]j~`Wq
