Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:02:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and their drafts? Our next scheduled meeting is the 27th of February, but we could have one on the 13th or earlier at the usual time if that worked for everyone. I can do the following dates: snip February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT snip I'm not opposed to a realtime drafting session, but the above is the only one of the proposed times that works for me. I also think having a drafting session that doesn't have representation of the full range of opinions from the TC is likely to be counterproductive; it allows for rapid iteration on ballot options, but to little effect if those options don't actually have consensus behind them. So I think on-list drafting is probably best here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#727708: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: Ansgar Burchardt writes (Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?): In this case I suggest to decide just the question of the default init system on Linux architectures first and address further details later if no consensus can be found elsewhere. Finding the correct wording then should be easier. I strongly object to this approach for the reasons I have given already. If I am given the opportunity to do so, if such a resolution is proposed I will always propose amendments to settle the T vs L question. I understand that you don't like the simple vote, because it doesn't allow you to express that your opinion on the init system depends on the outcome of the coupling question (or vice versa). This is all good in theory. In this particular situation, however, I don't think this is a concern in practice. It seems pretty clear that the default init system question is going to be decided by Bdale casting vote. As I think you said yourself, it's not likely that anyones opinion is going to change at this point. In other words, the decision for the init system is a given, all that is necessary is to finally bring it to a formal vote. In practice any difference in your vote that would depend on the outcome of the coupling question is not going to affect the result. It seems that the only effect of adding all the coupling and GR stuff is to make the ballot more complicated. If adding these options would somehow result in a clear majority (without the need for a casting vote) for one default init system, then to me this would look more like an undesired voting artifact rather than a change in the majority opinion of the CTTE. Am I missing something? Given the apparent challenges to draft an acceptable ballot, I think Bdale's idea of keeping the vote truly simple should be reconsidered. Best, Nikolaus -- Encrypted emails preferred. PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871tzeblb2@rath.org
Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
Hi, On 02/06/2014 06:33, Russ Allbery wrote: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and their drafts? I personally suspect that we have exhausted the capacity of the TC to deal with this problem, and that spending more time on it may actually result in worse decisions than we would make right now. Currently, I like each ballot we're getting less than I liked the previous one. So I'm dubious. Voting FD again due to failing to agree on a ballot might also indicate that the secondary question (allowing dependencies on functionality only available with a subset of existing init systems) have not been reasonably discussed elsewhere (as required by 6.3.5). In this case I suggest to decide just the question of the default init system on Linux architectures first and address further details later if no consensus can be found elsewhere. Finding the correct wording then should be easier. The init system vote could than have the options Bdale suggested earlier, with addition of a suitable GR override paragraph. The latter addition seemed at least uncontroversional except for a few wording issues. Chances are quite high that this will be decided by GR anyway at this point. In that case we could also just start the GR now. I don't think we win anything by delaying this decision further and further. In contrast, it will mean we will fix *less* integration bugs before the freeze if the init system changes. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f36793.6050...@debian.org
Bug#727708: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
Ansgar Burchardt writes (Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?): In this case I suggest to decide just the question of the default init system on Linux architectures first and address further details later if no consensus can be found elsewhere. Finding the correct wording then should be easier. I strongly object to this approach for the reasons I have given already. If I am given the opportunity to do so, if such a resolution is proposed I will always propose amendments to settle the T vs L question. If I am not given the opportunity to do so, that would be because someone proposes a set of options which do not answer the tying question, and immediately calls for a vote. Under the circumstances that would be IMO a clear breach of process. I hope that now that I have made this perfectly clear, that this will not happen. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21235.27136.274502.595...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
Don Armstrong writes (Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?): Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and their drafts? I'd be happy to do that. If you believe a meeting would be useful, please respond, and delete all of the non-working dates. ... The remaining ones which I can make: February 10 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 11 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 13 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 17 2014 18:00:00 GMT Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21234.58393.558258.68...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and their drafts? I personally suspect that we have exhausted the capacity of the TC to deal with this problem, and that spending more time on it may actually result in worse decisions than we would make right now. Currently, I like each ballot we're getting less than I liked the previous one. So I'm dubious. Chances are quite high that this will be decided by GR anyway at this point. That said, I'm willing to give it a try if other folks disagree with me. I can make the following dates: February 7 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 10 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 11 2014 18:00:00 GMT February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878utoajph@windlord.stanford.edu
