On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved
> > lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at
> > the moment. Would you suppor
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discu
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:17:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
>support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters
>don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
>detail, but the debian
Frans Pop writes:
> Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence
> with "Fun!" to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on,
> you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you […]
> Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my E
Ben Finney wrote:
> A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
> prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
> person prefers that option to appear on the ballot.
Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence
with "F
Frans Pop writes:
> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the
> highest number of seconds win [1]?
A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
person prefers that option to
Frans Pop writes:
> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
> number of seconds win [1]?
One of the primary objections to this proposal is that it will be too hard
to get the new required number of seconds. It seems quite reasonable to
put that objection to t
Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
>
> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
> number of seconds win?
That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I recommend to
the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage t
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
> minimum support for an opinion.
It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many v
> Seconded!
>
> I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already.
Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win [1]?
/me also watches Kurt scrambling to keep up with the amendmends, seconds
and rescinds and would like to note that he seems to
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>=
>General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
>Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
>discussion and/or voting o
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> Gen
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26:59AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > =
> > > Ge
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> There
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > PROPOSAL START
> > =
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Proj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("[Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR
sponsoring"):
> I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
> to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two "keep
> things as is" o
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discu
* Kurt Roeckx [Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:52:22 +0100]:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is
> > clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed
> > changes when in fact it
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:20PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> >
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > AMENDMENT START
> > >
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> ===
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:25:34PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> >
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
MJ Ray writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>>
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
>>> lack of evidence about the
Romain Beauxis writes:
> Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
>> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
>> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
>> were handled.
> I understand the furstration about them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> >
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Something else that would be interesting to store in UDD is the full bug
> logs, as it would allow to list the comments that someone posted to
> bugs. That's expensive, but maybe we could only store a subset of
> information, like the From, Date, and Sub
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> What about:
> General Resolution sponsorship requirements
sounds like package sponsorship requirements to me. therefore i suggest
to be extra clear and change it to 'Requirements for General Resolution
Sponsorship'.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if gen
Not that it makes much difference to 'further discussion', but:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Whi
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
>
> I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
> way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
> willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
> quality is obvious
On 25/03/09 at 10:39 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:44:05AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I also saw mass updates of Vcs-* fields by a recent contributor which
> > implies as many entries in debian/changelog, yet very few real packaging
> > experience associated t
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved
> lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at
> the moment. Would you support using donations to fund one or both of
> those?
This is also an iss
Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
> > This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> > generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> > were handled.
>
> But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
> secon
I was requested to forward the following mail by Sven Luther:
- Forwarded message from Sven Luther -
From: Sven Luther
To: Gunnar Wolf , listmas...@debian.org
Cc: Romain Beauxis , debian-de...@lists.debian.org,
debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:17 +0100
S
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important frame
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:44:05AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I also saw mass updates of Vcs-* fields by a recent contributor which
> implies as many entries in debian/changelog, yet very few real packaging
> experience associated to all those uploads.
>
> The data would be useful but we need
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:05:07AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So looking through the nominations, platforms and the current -vote
> threads, I'm left wondering if any of this actually matters. Only
> two candidates running, no IRC debate or rebuttals added to the
> platforms,
[ Don't worry, you
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
> > I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
> > the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
> > for it.
>
> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, b
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework w
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting o
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the
> > wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we
> > need done and that doesn't invol
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially
> 2008_003 were handled.
Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even
though it i
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:09AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> The 'minimum count of packages uploaded' seems contradictory with the
> wish to have people join existing teams. There's a lot of work that we
> need done and that doesn't involve uploading packages. Not that I have
> a better metr
44 matches
Mail list logo
