Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: So, how many are in favor of redo *completely* the vote (in more ballot, the first being the one for lenny ONLY)? how many should we be to let it happen? how many should be in contrary to stop this re-vote? how can we express the need for a better vote to let our beloved lenny be released? I'm against stopping the current vote. Let's wait for the outcome, and after that hold new votes for options that are still relevant then. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen g...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: So, how many are in favor of redo *completely* the vote (in more ballot, the first being the one for lenny ONLY)? how many should we be to let it happen? how many should be in contrary to stop this re-vote? how can we express the need for a better vote to let our beloved lenny be released? I'm against stopping the current vote. Let's wait for the outcome, and after that hold new votes for options that are still relevant then. Do we have any well-defined procedure to stop/cancel a GR (in progress)? If not, is it the DPL to decide, based on what is voiced on this list? Shouldn't people just say Further discussion in their votes to express such concerns (in terms of a vote)? Best, Michael pgpK2MVBfTI3R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 02:59:52PM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Do we have any well-defined procedure to stop/cancel a GR (in progress)? If not, is it the DPL to decide, based on what is voiced on this list? Shouldn't people just say Further discussion in their votes to express such concerns (in terms of a vote)? Certainly, if there are enough people putting Further discussion at the top, the GR is effectively canceled. And even if Further discussion does not win, those who oppose of the current ballot can still specify their preferences for the other options. AFAIK, it's also possible for those people who already voted and are now changing their mind after reading these discussions to recast their vote. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen g...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
Sandro Tosi dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100]: Hello, I've started a new thread because follow 2 very long thread starts being a little tedious. This voice is coming out more and more strong lately: why don't we simply delete the current gr_lenny and start another ballot, only focusing on the *real* lenny release? All other options must go into other ballot, or more than one, let's talk about that. Rank Further discussion first. That's our best way to say I think this vote is wrong. -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
Hi Gunnar, On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 17:38, Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote: Sandro Tosi dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:22:40PM +0100]: Hello, I've started a new thread because follow 2 very long thread starts being a little tedious. This voice is coming out more and more strong lately: why don't we simply delete the current gr_lenny and start another ballot, only focusing on the *real* lenny release? All other options must go into other ballot, or more than one, let's talk about that. Rank Further discussion first. That's our best way to say I think this vote is wrong. But that will delay even further Lenny release; I think that a simple vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move forward a release. It is nice how many replies the thread on joss rudeness received and so few this one...bah... -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [081218 18:11]: But that will delay even further Lenny release; Hey! You suggested to redo something. Thus you are suggesting to delay. I think that a simple vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move forward a release. Please note that changing the vote changes the output. And while the current vote might be strange, the simplified vote only makes sense if you want a very specific outcome, thus is much worse and extremly undemocratic. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 20:33, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote: * Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [081218 18:11]: But that will delay even further Lenny release; Hey! You suggested to redo something. Thus you are suggesting to delay. But maybe with the aim of a better target? I think that a simple vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move forward a release. Please note that changing the vote changes the output. and don't we want it? don't we want to know if we can release lenny with blobs or release without it (just to make an example)? And while the current vote might be strange, the simplified vote only makes sense if you want a very specific outcome, thus is much worse and extremly undemocratic. ehm? what? how is it un-democratic to have different votes for different things, targetted exactly to decide where something is allowed or not? the specific outcome I want it to be sure that whatever the ballot results will be, we then know *exactly* what to do for lenny, something I don't believe it could be archive with the current ballot. Politely, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
* Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org [081218 20:51]: ehm? what? how is it un-democratic to have different votes for different things, targetted exactly to decide where something is allowed or not? Then do different votes for different things. And put together what belongs together. But just having a wait forever for something not specified so meaning mostly everything and take one course of action, is only usefull if you want exactly that output taken. At least it would need to be take this course of action or further discussion. (And then the same votes for other possible decissions). And then some way to solve the problem of taking a consistent solution, which would most likely mean voting serially. And that means finding some way to decide what to vote first. the specific outcome I want it to be sure that whatever the ballot results will be, we then know *exactly* what to do for lenny, something I don't believe it could be archive with the current ballot. While I agree that current ballot is not very good at this, the alternative ballot you suggest to take instead is not good either, unless you want one specific outcome, by only taking one option and one option almost noone might want. There are at least several more: Releasing now with all non-free or undistributeable firmware removed. Releasing now with all firmware with license to distribute removed. Wait a specific time for some specific goals. Just replacing with a wait indefinitly for this or ignore everything at all is what I call un-democratic, when it is clear that the large majority of people will prefer something else than those extremes. Especially if it are not even all extremes, but just a limited number of it. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Let's restart from scratch the gr_lenny vote (in a better form this time)?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 06:07:43PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Rank Further discussion first. That's our best way to say I think
this vote is wrong.
But that will delay even further Lenny release; I think that a simple
vote like the one dato proposed is what is needed to let us move
forward a release.
Nope, this is kinda FUD.
In the absence of a vote outcome, everything continues as the GR
wasn't there, hence the release team can do its job and make a release
as they please.
Things would have been different if the GR text had appealed to
constitution §4.2.2 (provided one can find a decision to be put on
hold), but this is not the case.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
