Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On 11/11/2014 02:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
>> The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this:
>>
>> GR Proposal: Option A.
>> Amendment A: Option B.
>> Amendment B: Option C.
>>
>> we might better stick with numbered options.
>
> *rotfl*. I'm hoping the Secretary could avoid that and that we could
> instead have
>
> GR Proposal: Option A.
> Amendment B: Option B.
> Amendment C: Option C.
Or even simpler
Proposal A: Option A
Proposal B: Option B
Proposal C: Option C
I'm not sure why there is a need to treat the initial proposal and later
ones in a different way.
As a related question, I also don't understand why the proposer of the
initial proposal and of later amendments are treated differently in the
constitution, e.g. in A.1.5. Ian suggested this might just be a bug[1]?
(I'm also wondering if there is a difference between "original proposer"
as used in A.1.4 and "proposer of a resolution" in A.1.5.)
Ansgar
[1] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00309.html>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546216fb.1090...@debian.org
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
coupling"):
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather
> > than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off
> > (in my CFT) ?
>
> The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this:
>
> GR Proposal: Option A.
> Amendment A: Option B.
> Amendment B: Option C.
>
> we might better stick with numbered options.
*rotfl*. I'm hoping the Secretary could avoid that and that we could
instead have
GR Proposal: Option A.
Amendment B: Option B.
Amendment C: Option C.
or
GR Proposal: Option Y.
Amendment A: Option A.
Amendment B: Option B.
or something.
Personally I find the current arrangements extremely confusing -
particularly, the way that devotee often provides transposed
information, which is quite hard to notice.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21602.2772.916501.616...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
> > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
> > would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
> > manual action in future. I'm currently working from
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone
> > fancies adding extra support to devotee.
>
> I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather
> than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off
> (in my CFT) ?
I've heard from Manoj that he also has been working on devotee
2.0, but I can't find it.
I've also been wondering about end-to-end auditable voting like
heliosvoting or civistas. But I didn't have time yet to really
look at it.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110185609.ga10...@roeckx.be
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
> > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
> > would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
> > manual action in future. I'm currently working from
> > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone
> > fancies adding extra support to devotee.
>
> I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather
> than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off
> (in my CFT) ?
>
I think that would probably be helpful, yes! Not only in the case where
we get more than 9 options on the ballot, but I also think it would help
clarify some of the voting options when you're ranking options.
Neil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110183135.gf10...@halon.org.uk
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather > than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off > (in my CFT) ? The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this: GR Proposal: Option A. Amendment A: Option B. Amendment B: Option C. we might better stick with numbered options. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110182308.gb17...@cantor.unex.es
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Neil McGovern writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
coupling"):
> Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
> would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
> manual action in future. I'm currently working from
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone
> fancies adding extra support to devotee.
I have a half-written series to make it cope with lettered, rather
than numbered, options. Would it be worth my while finishing that off
(in my CFT) ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21601.30.240523.429...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > > > [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init > > > system > > > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > > > mandatory > > > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > > > decide > > > [ 3 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > > > [ 4 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > > > Ouch, that got send to the wrong address. :( > > Neil: There was no Reply-To set in the reissued call for votes :( > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this manual action in future. I'm currently working from http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/neilm/devotee.git/ if anyone fancies adding extra support to devotee. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]: > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced" > > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be > > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) > > The "we are currently skeptical" wording was not present in the passed > resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1]. > > That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the > switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly > not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of > anyone else on the CTTE.) I fully agree to that statement (and to the rest of your mail). > Indeed, paragraph 4 of that decision is actually a reflection of my > personal reluctance to decide this issue in the CTTE without a very > specific technical proposal and thorough testing. Also, we shouldn't decide on things not ready, and so in case someone would like the ctte to overrule here, there is just no ground currently. So anyone wanting a specific decision from the ctte (like "the default shouldn't switch on dist-upgrade", "the default should switch on dist-upgrade", or whatever else) needs to show before the decision that this is reasonable possible, what are the downsides of the decision and also why the ctte needs to decide (especially as the ctte only decides as last-resort). Details see paragraph 4, for any decision. So we could clone paragraph 4 to an 4a, 4b etc for any of other cases people would like us to decide here. In hindsight it might have been better to not decide yet but to suspend that topic until we had that plan but it's easier to say so afterwards. In theory our decision is nothing else, but some people interpret it different which makes me quite sad. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109221450.gb...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[Please CC me on replies.]
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
>
> The "we are currently skeptical" wording was not present in the passed
> resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1].
I stand corrected; thank you. However, I don't think that changes the
point. The resulting decision had effectively the same tone.
Linking to the resolution announcement for reference:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html
> That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the
> switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly
> not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of
> anyone else on the CTTE.)
I completely believe that it was not the intention of most of the people
voting for the resolution that passed. However, the combination of item
1 (explicitly narrowing the scope of the previous TC decision), item 4
(inviting proposals towards one specific approach), and item 5 ("After
the result of the General Resolution is known, we intend to formally
resolve the question", as though the TC *should* continue to take action
after the GR) comes across as both threatening and interminable, and
makes it fairly clear what action the TC wants to take.
Furthermore, the very top of the announcement in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg0.html is
a lie of omission as well: "The technical committee was asked". As Joey
Hess put it in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00045.html:
> I am astounded that, in #762194, the technical committe has
>
> 1. Decided it should make a decision, when no disagreement
>between maintainers of affected packages is involved.
> 2. Ignored evidence of ongoing work.
>(specifically, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762194#25)
> 3. Plowed ahead with a vote that decides a massively complicated
>issue with a grand total of 3 days of discussion.
>
> This is not a decision-making process that will yeild a high-quality
> distibution. Or one that I can be proud to be involved with. Or one
> that, frankly, gives me any confidence in the technical committee's
> current membership or indeed reason to continue to exist.
I agree almost completely with Joey's thoughts above, with one
exception. Personally, I still have plenty of confidence in almost all
of the technical committee's current membership, including those on
*both* sides of the current debate, with one very glaring exception.
I would also suggest that it's a bad idea to let a single member of an
arbitration body refer in a pile of issues, write up draft resolutions
for those issues, push for rapid discussion and votes on those issues,
and send out the resulting decisions. Those do not seem like signs of a
healthy process, and they certainly contribute to the impression of the
TC being used as a weapon.
- Josh Triplett
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109220125.GA1457@thin
Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced" > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) The "we are currently skeptical" wording was not present in the passed resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1]. That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of anyone else on the CTTE.) Indeed, paragraph 4 of that decision is actually a reflection of my personal reluctance to decide this issue in the CTTE without a very specific technical proposal and thorough testing. Especially considering that we would be overriding the transition plan announced in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg00611.html at a very late date. See https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20141107211930.gm29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com for my specific response to this issue when it was raised. 1: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/commit/?id=7a0009d350d57b89aa848f4d66a0b40959893373 -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109212136.gg29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
[CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.] Sune Vuorela wrote: > I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. > > /Sune > > [17:35:34] > http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html Sune, Thank you for calling attention to that very disturbing IRC log. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but I've called out a few particularly disturbing quotes below that make me quite done with assuming anything even remotely close to good faith anymore. (Note that "Diziet" is Ian's IRC nick.) 17:14:02 bdale: The GR is going to be another 3 weeks. 17:14:09 We should decide on the automatic switch before then IMO 17:15:30 I don't think it's reasonable to say that we need a tested alternative given how bad the situation is right now. (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced" wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...) 17:34:12 Diziet: I don't think that stating that we don't want to swap on upgrades is something we can agree on 17:34:25 Diziet: at least, not while the GR is happening which seems to directly address this part of the question 17:34:28 dondelelcaro: That's not the question. The question is whether it's something that would pass a TC vote. 17:34:32 I'm done with consensus decisionmaking. 17:35:34 That's not to say I'm not open to convincing. But everything done by my opponents in this whole war has been done on a majoritarian basis and I see no reason to limit myself to consensual acts. 17:36:48 Diziet: we can always go to majoritarian, but if we can agree, so much the better. 17:37:17 dondelelcaro: I and my allies have been being shat on by the majoritarians since February. It's too late for that. (I'll also point out the pile of #action items Ian self-assigned, as well as the pile of times Ian has effectively self-referred items to the TC in the first place.) I've already felt from the more public portions of the TC discussions that Ian has been using the TC as a personal stick to hit people with. This makes it even more clear. See also Joey Hess's near-final mail at https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00045.html , pointing out the same issues. Calling this a war, being "done with consensus decisionmaking", "bitter rearguard battles" indeed... To put it bluntly: I don't believe this is even remotely acceptable behavior from a member of the TC (or a member of the project in general, but in the latter case someone has less potential to cause damage). Does anyone, in light of the above, feel even remotely comfortable having Ian continue to wield^Wserve on the technical committee? I don't care *how* you feel about init systems or any other issue; the above actions, tactics, and statements, and similarly consistent ones elsewhere are not even remotely acceptable on any side. The frothing-mad rampage and the battle-on-every-possible-front needs to end. I think it's safe to say that there's a substantial number of people hoping that the current GR will actually *settle* this question, with the project having spoken. We clearly have a pile of people who want to discuss and deal with the init system issue, many of whom are still capable of productive discussion and consensus-building. Many people are actively developing solutions to make the situation better. I've seen very impressive reasoning and careful judgement by various people in this and other issues. Russ Allbery comes to mind as the high standard we should expect from our TC members. And every other member of the TC, on *both* sides, seems quite reasoned and reasonable. So, at the risk of making things worse before they get better, since nobody else seems willing to explicitly say it: What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical committee? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109202203.GA1700@thin
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:10:13PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > > [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > > mandatory > > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > > decide > > [ 3 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > > [ 4 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Ouch, that got send to the wrong address. :( Neil: There was no Reply-To set in the reissued call for votes :( -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette". - If you don't I might ignore you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141106161033.ga27...@debian.org
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:53:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > mandatory > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > decide > [ 3 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > [ 4 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette". - If you don't I might ignore you. pgptOKTYrSBAc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > [ 5 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > [ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > mandatory > [ 2 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > decide > [ 1 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > [ 4 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- pgpUTIoWp05Vn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > [ 2 ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > [ 3 ] Choice 2: Support for other init systems is recommended, but not > mandatory > [ 4 ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers > decide > [ 1 ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > [ 5 ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- pgp40zFyaljQE.pgp Description: PGP signature
