On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 03:54:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> My understanding of the implications of this process (and Kurt is
> authoritative here, of course) is that if you rank NOTA equally with an
> option, that vote is not part of V(A,D) or V(D,A) since neither option is
> preferred over
Russ Allbery writes:
> Philip Hands writes:
>
>> The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
>
>> To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
>> desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
>> the above" choice and leave choices you consider u
Philip Hands writes:
> The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
> To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
> desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
> the above" choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.
> which to
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>>
>>
>> >> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> >> changes to the constitution.
>>
>> Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
Felix Lechner wrote on 27/03/2022 at 22:30:53+0200:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>
>> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
>> been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
>
> People were confused.
>
> Given the s
On 3/28/22 01:30, Felix Lechner wrote:
Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both suffer would be resolved by
a simple redo of the vote with a ballot that carries the appropriate
warning. That is all I asked for.
IMO we shouldn't have voted for this in the first place (for many
reasons, like no
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
>
> >> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
> >> changes to the constitution.
>
> Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
>
> I think Felix's point is
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
>> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> changes to the constitution.
Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota,
People who preferred option 3 would vote
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
> > been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
>
> People were confused.
>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 07:54:25AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does not. I
> guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
yes.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚
* Christian Kastner [2022-03-28 07:54]:
The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does
not. I guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
Yes, and this is exactly how I used Option 3 to express my
preference.
Cheers
Timo
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭───
On 2022-03-28 01:22, Christian Kastner wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-27 19:31, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
>> Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
>> the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
>> votes?
>
> This seems to be inline w
Felix Lechner writes:
> I suppose you and Kurt are saying that the denominator in the majority
> calculation is so exactly described that there is no room to read any
> protective spirit into the language of the constitution.
This is what I'm saying. Obviously I can't speak for Kurt.
Debian is
On 2022-03-27 19:31, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
> Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> votes?
This seems to be inline with what the proposer intended, though. From
the text of C
Hi Russ,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 2:29 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I do not believe you have enough information to make this assertion with
> complete confidence.
That is correct, and I will at this point wait until affected parties,
if any, speak up.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both suf
Felix Lechner writes:
> Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time for
> rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted that
> option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the constitutional
> protection against changes to the constitution.
The Pro
> Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
> replace the Project Secretary.
>
Let me get this straight --
You (a seconder of the winning option) now believe that we need to stop and
re-open
discussion on a closed matter that the whole project voted on (which I
believ
Hi Kurt,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
> been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
People were confused.
Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time
for rushed
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 08:03:35PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
> > the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
> > votes?
>
> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not hav
felix.lech...@lease-up.com writes:
> I believe the vote should be redone.
> A repeat without Option 3 is needed so that your certified results can
> properly reflect the electorate's position with respect to the question
> posed on the ballot while also honoring our constitutional majority
> requ
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 10:31:44AM -0700, felix.lech...@lease-up.com wrote:
> Dear Mr. Secretary,
>
> As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last
> night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these
> tentative results:
>
> > Option 2 defeats Option
Dear Mr. Secretary,
As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last
night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these
tentative results:
> Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 142 - 107) = 35 votes.
> Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 185 - 61) = 124 vote
Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
De
23 matches
Mail list logo
