Re: Proposal of new admin pseudo BTS package
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:46:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:32:56PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Adam Heath wrote: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Christian Hammers wrote: I therefore propose to create a pseudo bug packages for mail issues (and/or maybe one for general admin topics) like the existing lists.debian.org or www.debian.org. That's not how it works. You can't create a new place for those who do work to check for things to do. That'll just increase their load. In this case, wouldn't making the appropriate admin(s) the owner of the pseudo package make it so that they wouldn't have to check the bts pseudo package specifically? Sure, but it still absolutely requires their consent. Who have a demonstrated and persistant lack of interest in anything so openly reviewable, according to past actions, statements made in this thread, and other observations. Take that as you will. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:43:56AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I don't want to debate whether there is a functional difference because I think I will be accused of more esoteric math[s] talk and it's not relevant. The phrasing in question here seems accurate and clear enough that you can understand it in its present form. I don't see why having studied for maths degrees should disqualify my request for accuracy. I am able to understand it, yes; I also have a strong foundation in doing formal mathematics, though I haven't used such (in any practical sense) for some while. The phrasing is accurate, and concise - and I *did not advocate changing it*. What I advocated was considering the possibility of adding an explanatory footnote for those who do *not* have such training, outside the formal text in question (potentially in another document entirely, probably one without the strict controls necessary for revising the Constitution). At least I am a user of the affected package, which should count for something. As am I. I fail to see your point; were you trying to imply that only a DD should have an opinion? Perhaps you're right; unfortunately for the assertion that would imply (no DDs have an issue with it), I am one. Which, presumably, means that I count for precisely as much as you do, on the matter. Unless you meant something else, in which case I would ask that you clarify what you did mean. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpqOiG6fxYV2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:00:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-12-04 00:52:17 + Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an annotation of some form, to the effect of [1] Since one can't have fractional developers, and the rule is 'at least', we always round up to the next integer. As previously explained (by Andrew Suffield, I think), that is not what happens. Then I would have to say that we have, in fact, gone far enough into the realms of esoteric math (or pedantry) to have utterly lost any casual reader. In what was are the statements at least real Developers are required, and the one above functionally different? Can you present any number for which one is true, and the other isn't? Or is this arguing over the pedantry we don't round up, which could be rephrased in a number of ways. As someone else pointed out, a requirement of 2/3 majority (or 2/3 quorum, or any other count) doesn't bring the world to an end when the number is not divisible by 3 - but if you're going to claim that this does not have exactly the same effect as applying an integer comparison against ceil(quorum), then I want to know where we departed from the math I grew up learning, or where you came up with a fraction of a developer. Annotations are frequently separated from a document precisely so that the document can be explained in casual terms (for this case, read: not in formal mathematics), without diluting the actual document itself with the explanations. Thus, talking about effectively is not unreasonable; perhaps you would prefer we effectively end up rounding upwards to the next integer? That, at least, would satisfy pedantry while still conveying useful information to the casual reader. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp7ftOz11Pby.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#210879: marked as done (constitution.txt: revise odd language -- K Developers... not integers)
Looks to me like the only reasonable next step, since the user considers it sufficiently important to ask for it to be open/wontfix (which might not be unreasonable), and others insist that it be closed completely (which also might not be unreasonable), is to ask... well, I'd guess the tech-ctty, except that this isn't really a *technical* bug, exactly... FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of justification for why it isn't left open/wontfix, since that is, in fact, what the default state for can't agree on whether it's a bug is really supposed to be, according to my reading of the relevant documents. Remember, it takes two people to play tennis (or, in this case, what appears to be one person, and a whole chorus line on the other side of the court, but the point remains). I really fail to see a compelling reason, for my part, as to why: severity wishlist tags +wontfix won't result in a compromise that is, if not perfect, at least within what we say we'll do. Failing that, the only other answer to resolve it (in any truly final sense, if anything could be final about it) would be for the submitter to convince enough DDs to get a GR into the voting process, for the change. (Okay, that would have to happen anyway, at least before a change could be made, but since the submitter has, in fact, expressed a willingness to compromise on something less wasteful of everyone's time than either probably-spurious GRs, or bug tennis, I find the reply in rather bad form). Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an annotation of some form, to the effect of [1] Since one can't have fractional developers, and the rule is 'at least', we always round up to the next integer. That might also be excessive, but as a footnote which explains the math, rather than as part of the core text, it would make more sense. However, that way may lie the madness of a cluttered document, since the Constitution isn't meant to be a textbook. Maybe we need the Commentaries? Actually, that may not be such a bad idea, given recent issues over things like the DFSG, and the fact that it has taken years for the origional author to clarify the intent while they were being written. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpLg9HWPFuTT.pgp Description: PGP signature
