Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi Lucas, On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the > current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to > propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course > fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it > at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose > additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current > amendments. I have no plans to proposed another amendment myself, no. I've actually not given the discussions thus far as much attention as I would have liked to, partially waiting for the dust to settle before properly evaluating the options. My concern about reducing the discussion period is one of perception. You have the authority to reduce it as DPL. But you also authored one of the amendments. There's nothing procedurally that prevents you from exercising both rights, but I am concerned that whichever way the voting goes, there will be a faction of people who will consider the vote to have been compromised. I know that you are not attempting to rush through a decision to get the outcome you desire; and I'm sure none of our DD colleagues would accuse you of that either. But there's a large peanut gallery watching the project at the moment, and any perceived irregularity will be jumped on. snip > ...could be better to wait for the outcome of the present GR to vote > on a TC resolution. And that TC resolution could have an impact on > the release. It would indeed be a shame if the release was delayed as a result of this GR. One has to weigh up the risks of that, versus the risks I've outlined above. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141024132751.ga24...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
On 23/10/14 at 07:52 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Dear Lucas, > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and > > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined > > to shorten the discussion period. > > I hope you consider the point raised in 20141017090800.ga3...@chew.redmars.org > before taking this action. Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current amendments. However, I'd like to point out that there are good reasons to reduce the discussion period. There's currently a discussion in the TC about what to do during upgrades from wheezy to jessie (#765803). It was raised in <871tq189dh@rover.gag.com> that it could be better to wait for the outcome of the present GR to vote on a TC resolution. And that TC resolution could have an impact on the release. Also, I think that everybody is quite tired of those discussions, and it would be better to be able to focus on preparing the release rather sooner than later. Finally, given that the voting period won't be reduced, it would still be possible to discuss the merits of each proposal during the beginning of the voting period, if needed. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141023070742.ga26...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Dear Lucas, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined > to shorten the discussion period. I hope you consider the point raised in 20141017090800.ga3...@chew.redmars.org before taking this action. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141023065258.gd20...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening > the discussion period to one week? I am fine with shortening it. Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Lucas Nussbaum (2014-10-22): > On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I > > would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period, > > to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the > > middle of next week about that. > > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined > to shorten the discussion period. For all I know/remember from the mails I read, it seems there was an agreement that this GR wouldn't affect jessie in any way. While I can sympathize with trying to reach a conclusion sooner than later, possibly sparing quite some mails[1], I'm not sure why there would be any need for any "rush". Can't we just let the usual timing apply? 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00319.html KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1
week"):
> I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> to shorten the discussion period.
>
> I reached out to Ian in private (in an attempt to limit the noise on
> this list), but Ian suggested that we have this discussion in public.
Indeed.
> However, Ian said that he has no objection to shortening the discussion
> period.
I have no objection for my own part.
But, as I said in my private email, I am very concerned that we don't
get any accusations of foul play. Therefore I think it essential
that, at the very least, all of the proponents of alternative versions
agree.
It might be worth posting to debian-devel-announce asking if anyone
objects and thinks we need more discussion time, and inviting them to
say so on -vote if they do. We have already had some problems with
people not being aware enough of the formal processes.
> On the other hand, Ian said that he doesn't think that it would be right
> to shorten the voting period. Given that I have been heavily involved in
> the discussions around this GR proposal, I am not going to reduce the
> voting period against the original proposer's will.
Thank you.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21575.52836.735647.936...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi Lucas, 2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum : > Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening > the discussion period to one week? Fine for me. Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadk7b0myhwpcdgigdos2xsby83ggwaaifj1n-57fxornqni...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi, On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I > would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period, > to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the > middle of next week about that. I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined to shorten the discussion period. I reached out to Ian in private (in an attempt to limit the noise on this list), but Ian suggested that we have this discussion in public. However, Ian said that he has no objection to shortening the discussion period. Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening the discussion period to one week? On the other hand, Ian said that he doesn't think that it would be right to shorten the voting period. Given that I have been heavily involved in the discussions around this GR proposal, I am not going to reduce the voting period against the original proposer's will. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
2014-10-17 10:42 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum : > Note that our voting method is clone-proof, so one proposal cannot steal > votes from one another. That's one of the great things about Condorcet: > you can have similar proposals on the same ballot without causing the > votes to be split. Also numbers like "25%" don't really make sense with > Condorcet, unless you limit the calculation to two proposals. Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I still consider a choice between a very few options to be more direct to everybody, though (fellow developers, our users, and the vocal minority). Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADk7b0OuUzTjeWEUPdkO5-22woS-8=tcqnbywbnmh79s+s2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
On 17/10/14 at 10:28 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote: > 2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum : > > So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...] > > I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too > many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could "win" with > less than 25% of the votes if the other ones are stealing votes one > another, especially if they're aiming at the same goal, but with > different statements. Note that our voting method is clone-proof, so one proposal cannot steal votes from one another. That's one of the great things about Condorcet: you can have similar proposals on the same ballot without causing the votes to be split. Also numbers like "25%" don't really make sense with Condorcet, unless you limit the calculation to two proposals. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017084245.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum : > So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...] I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could "win" with less than 25% of the votes if the other ones are stealing votes one another, especially if they're aiming at the same goal, but with different statements. I see the Project is divided, and I see this like a "Black Or White" decision, so I'd welcome *two* clear, concise, and final statements to choose about how the Project wants to move forward. We left too many grey areas in the previous decisions which created too many interpretations, and these led to where we are now. This should come to an end. Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cadk7b0mjtxrqgzx5sxvj399-nc_sbrs9gjmoykuzropae35...@mail.gmail.com
Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi, On 17/10/14 at 08:38 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power > under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week. I'd be > surprised if anyone is likely to change their view on the desirability > of choice of init system now - as others have pointed out, the > arguments have been rumbling on for a time. I am considering doing that. On the other hand, now that we are going to vote anyway, I think that we should use this opportunity to clarify the project's position on this issue, which would not be achieved if FD won. So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), and I just put forward one based on the "Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init support" option of the TC resolution on init system coupling. But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period, to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the middle of next week about that. There's also the possibility to use 4.2.3 to reduce the voting period to one week. Assuming we would be voting over the last week of october or the first of november, are there strong reasons not to reduce the voting period to one week? This is a vacation period in some schools in France and maybe elsewhere, but that is usually not one where many people are away and offline. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
