Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> 
> Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.

That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
we might get a representative vote this time.

According to vote.d.org, there's already been 155 votes in the first 4
days, compared to 214 on the last ballot. Still, looks like the first
few days are among the busiest usually.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
> we might get a representative vote this time.

I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
procedure?

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Ben Burton]

> I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
> procedure?

FWIW, they _are_ two different GRs.  You can view them as (1) "let's
remove the possible ambiguity in the SC", (2) "now it's crystal clear
that significant changes are required, let's decide when/how we'll
implement them".  Only one of the six options in the new GR is actually
asking to revert the old one.

b.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Frank Küster]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) schrieb:

> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
>> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
>> we might get a representative vote this time.
>
> I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
> procedure?

It's a bad procedure. 

But that wasn't the question, AFAIS. The statement in question was

[you]
> [hamish]
> > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> 
> Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.

And I think that in fact we have a chance that the current GR will make
an end, whereas the previous just started all this. I don't think that
the low number of voters are the reason why the consequences of the
previous GR weren't accepted by many. Rather I think that the low vote
count, and the non-acceptance have a common reason: The fact that the
consequences of the change where unforeseen, obviously both by many
non-voters and by some of the proposers/seconders.

I think it is quite clear now what the consequences of (at least most
of) the options on the ballot will be, and that this vote *does*
matter (at least if you're interested in Debian being free software and
serving it's users well, which every DD should). Therefore I hope that
the result will settle things, and that people will start working and
cease discussion.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Jochen Voss]

Hello Manoj,

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
>  out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
>  interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
>  the Highway".
Sorry, but I think this is not true.  Voting further
discussion in the top 3 may just indicate that the voter
has found out about the implicit 1:1 super-majority requirement
which we have in our current voting system.

In my opinion the best strategy [*] with our current voting system
is to rank "further discussion" second, directly after your
favourite option.  This slightly increases the chances of your
favourite option winning (the others could be dropped because
of the super-majority requirement).  And you can still indicate
your preferences among the remaining options.

Rewarding insincere voting is the price we pay for introducing
the quorum and super-majority mechanisms.

Jochen


[*] By "best strategy" I mean simply the strategy which has the
highest chances of making your favourite option win.
-- 
http://seehuhn.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well
> > know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that
> > we might get a representative vote this time.
> 
> I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
> procedure?

Not in general. In this case a number of developers feel (rightly or
wrongly) that they were misled by the previous ballot, and wanted
another chance to influence Debian policy.

I think that you can reasonably expect this to happen again next
time the developers feel they are misled.

I don't think we need to debate whether or not the ballot was misleading
yet again.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-06-24 08:31:49 +0100 Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, [...]
Consequently, supporters of the last GR have been accused of 
"gerrymandering" because the vote ended up in "spring break" for some 
people.

I would like to note in advance that this vote is at least as bad in 
that way, because the voting period is mostly in the summer break of 
many European universities.

--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> >  out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> >  interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> >  the Highway".

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Sorry, but I think this is not true. 
...
> In my opinion the best strategy [*] with our current voting system
> is to rank "further discussion" second, directly after your
> favourite option.

This can only true if you're not interested in compromise or consensus.

Interestingly enough, you did not offer any reasons to believe that
Manoj's statement is not true.  You did offer a number of justifications
for your own view (which I choose not to quote), but it looks like you
missed Manoj's point -- not like you have any reason to disagree with it.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:53 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

>> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come out. Anyone
>> who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not interested in
>> compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or the Highway".

> Or it could mean that he prefers further discussion to several
> options.

Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like
 this one option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider
 any of them thar oppossing view, no siree.

manoj
-- 
If the designers of X-window built cars, there would be no fewer than
five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed
the same prinicples -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car
stereo.  Useful feature, that. From the programming notebooks of a
heretic, 1990.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:19:04 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Hello Manoj,
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come out. Anyone
>> who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not interested in
>> compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or the Highway".
> Sorry, but I think this is not true.  Voting further discussion in
> the top 3 may just indicate that the voter has found out about the
> implicit 1:1 super-majority requirement which we have in our current
> voting system.

> In my opinion the best strategy [*] with our current voting system
> is to rank "further discussion" second, directly after your
> favourite option.


Best strategy? My way should win, no matter what? I would
 rather have my way win, or else we do nothing? My way alone is worth
 considering? Me? Me! ME!

You may win the battle, but you'll lose the war: you have
 just alienated people who do not hink like you. Indeed, this my
 opinion is the only one that counts strategy is the problem: the
 voting system allows you to be a jerk, and allows you to vote in a
 fashion that says you have a closed mind.


> This slightly increases the chances of your favourite option winning
> (the others could be dropped because of the super-majority
> requirement).  And you can still indicate your preferences among the
> remaining options.

Yep. Being a closed minded jerk decreases the chances of
 reaching a compromise solution. But you are the one choosing to
 decrease the chances of anyone elses solution winning.

> Rewarding insincere voting is the price we pay for introducing the
> quorum and super-majority mechanisms.

The voting mechanism is nuetral, it allows you to express an
 opinion. Including "My way or the highway".  Deciding to express
 that opinion is your call.  And developers like you are the reason
 why Debian is getting to be an unpleasant place: closed minded
 bigots who think their opinion is the only one that counts, and the
 project could not possibly do anything else, and bring it all down
 to a majority rule showdown.

I find that disgusting.

manoj
-- 
The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his
memos. New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Clint Adams]

>   Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like
>  this one option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider
>  any of them thar oppossing view, no siree.

Are you telling us that if there were a GR consisting only of
undesirable options, you would rank them all above Further Discussion
just for the sake of being a "team player"?

That strikes me as rather close-minded.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

anthony conyers

[Conyerstty]

what is my prize

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:59:10 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

>> Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like this one
>> option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider any of
>> them thar oppossing view, no siree.

> Are you telling us that if there were a GR consisting only of
> undesirable options, you would rank them all above Further
> Discussion just for the sake of being a "team player"?

I would propose an option that was better. And if all options
 on a ballot were unacceptable to me, to the extent I could not live
 with them, I would seriously reconsider my fit with the project, and
 perhaps decide it is time to move on.

Ranking FD first means you are not happy with the ballot; and
 in that case, you should have spoken up earlier, if you really care.

> That strikes me as rather close-minded.

Nice spin. Kinda like "Not allowing me to be a bigot is a
 pretty biased idea -- it discriminates against bigots".

We used to try to reach a compromise -- and, in that case, if
 one is in a minority, you try to convince the others, and you work
 with them -- "my way or the highway" is pretty stupid: all you get
 is bad blood.

manoj
-- 
Eh, that's it, I guess.  No 300 million dollar unveiling event for
this kernel, I'm afraid, but you're still supposed to think of this as
the "happening of the century" (at least until the next kernel comes
along). Oh, and this is another kernel in that great and venerable
"BugFree(tm)" series of kernels. So be not afraid of bugs, but go out
in the streets and deliver this message of joy to the masses. Linus
Torvalds, on releasing 1.3.27
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:19:04 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> In my opinion the best strategy [*] with our current voting system
> is to rank "further discussion" second, directly after your
> favourite option.  This slightly increases the chances of your
> favourite option winning (the others could be dropped because of the
> super-majority requirement).  And you can still indicate your
> preferences among the remaining options.

Does it really increase your chances? Consider these cases:

 Case 1: Your option ends up winning (even without your vote)
   a) it made majority
   b) it was more popular than the others
In this case you do not need the negative vote, and the bad
feelings that it engenders.
 Case 2: No option wins (with or without your vote)
 Negative voting gets you nothing here.

 Case 3: Your option lost, but some other won
subcase a) Your option lost by more than one vote
  your vote would not make a difference here, whether
  negative or not.

subcase b) Your option lost by just one vote
 in which case, a simple ranking would allow it to win

   subcase c)
+  the other option made majority, as did yours
+  the other option beats your option (else we would be in
   case 1)

Now, if all people who like your option voted against the
winner, making it lose majority, *AND* if the other side
played nice, you may win -- by knocking that option off the
ballot.

 But you only get one win.The next time, the people who voted for the
 more popular option, but lost to majority, will vote negatively,
 just like you. And your option will get creamed as well. And, from
 this point on, no action shall ever be taken -- since people are no
 longer interested in working with each other, further discussion
 shall win all the time.

This is a social problem. This is not the job of the
 technical solution (the vote mechanism) to fix the social problem of
 sophomoric developers more interested in having their side win than
 working with the others -- the people need to fix the social problem.


If we are not interested in working with other developers,
 whose views may not match ours, then Debian has grown too big to
 survive.


manoj
-- 
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." --Frank
Zappa
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Josip Rodin]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> 
> Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.

Uh, no, how many times and how many people will have to say that the title
and description were suboptimal (to put it mildly) before you are convinced
that the ballot didn't actually match what many voters thought?

I just counted 45 unique proposers/seconders in this GR (and that doesn't
include those who said nothing should change). That alone is over a fifth
of the total voters of the previous GR. That's a non-negligible percentage
if you ask me.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:31:49 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters
>> > think.  Hopefully that will be the end of it.
>>
>> Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters
>> thought, and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.

> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well

And now everyone has to pay for the apathy of apathetic and
 lazy developers?

manoj
-- 
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:50:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you
>> > well know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the
>> > developers that we might get a representative vote this time.
>>
>> I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
>> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
>> voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
>> possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
>> procedure?

> Not in general. In this case a number of developers feel (rightly or
> wrongly) that they were misled by the previous ballot, and wanted
> another chance to influence Debian policy.

People who are too lazy to read three!! messages sent to
 their mailbox about an important issue like a foundation
 document change are unlikely to pay attention anyway.

> I think that you can reasonably expect this to happen again next
> time the developers feel they are misled.

They are liars. Misled how? Tge full fucking text of the
 bloody GR was in the ballot sent to each developer not once,
 not twice , but three times. If you do not read the ballot, and do
 not read about what you are supposed to be voting on when sent to
 you in email, there is no hope for the project.


I am tired of all the apologists for people who were just too
 lazy to read a low volume list like d-d-a, and now seek to malign
 the secretary and sponsors by saying they were ``mislead''.


manoj

-- 
Detroit is Cleveland without the glitter.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:02:28PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.

> > Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> > and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.

> Uh, no, how many times and how many people will have to say that the title
> and description were suboptimal (to put it mildly) before you are convinced
> that the ballot didn't actually match what many voters thought?

> I just counted 45 unique proposers/seconders in this GR (and that doesn't
> include those who said nothing should change). That alone is over a fifth
> of the total voters of the previous GR. That's a non-negligible percentage
> if you ask me.

Do not use me as a statistic to support the claim that the previous GR
was misleading.  I was not surprised by the aftermath of the GR because
I failed to read the text of the resolution (which I seconded!), I was
surprised because AJ's elucidating comments were embedded in a
flamewar-of-a-thread that on -vote that I had killfiled.

I have no interest in blaming people for the present state of affairs --
not AJ, not my co-sponsors of 003 -- only in getting things situated so
we can get back to our job of releasing the most complete Free OS that
ever existed (whatever the community decides this should actually mean).

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Daniel Burrows]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard 
to say:
> I have no interest in blaming people for the present state of affairs --
> not AJ, not my co-sponsors of 003 -- only in getting things situated so
> we can get back to our job of releasing the most complete Free OS that
> ever existed (whatever the community decides this should actually mean).

  Hear, hear.

  Daniel

-- 
/-- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\
|  You are in a maze of twisty little signatures, all alike.  |
\-Evil Overlord, Inc: planning your future today. http://www.eviloverlord.com-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussions in Debian

[David N. Welton]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   Nice spin. Kinda like "Not allowing me to be a bigot is a
> pretty biased idea -- it discriminates against bigots".

Disagree and you are compared to a bigot? So now it's your way or the
highway, to borrow a phrase?

Manoj, you are not calming this discussion down or improving it, as
far as I can see.  I don't know what it is about your style of
comunication, but it reminds me more of "debate club" than rational
discussion in search of a common ground.  And if the problem is "the
other people", why do you continue to provoke and inflame them?
Because you have fun arguing or what?  What is your point?  What are
you trying to achieve?

-- 
David N. Welton
 Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
   Photos: http://www.dedasys.com/photos/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I see.  Is that what the Constitution says?  If you don't like who
> > won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
> > voted last time?  When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
> > possible and have more votes?  You really think this is a good
> > procedure?
> 
> FWIW, they _are_ two different GRs.  You can view them as (1) "let's
> remove the possible ambiguity in the SC", (2) "now it's crystal clear
> that significant changes are required, let's decide when/how we'll
> implement them".  Only one of the six options in the new GR is actually
> asking to revert the old one.

I surely agree.  My complaint is with Hamish's blithe assertion that
voting things down in Debian causes people to stop lobbying the
relevant issues.




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:27:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> > > Hopefully that will be the end of it.
> > 
> > Not likely.  The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
> > and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.
> 
> Uh, no, how many times and how many people will have to say that the title
> and description were suboptimal (to put it mildly) before you are convinced
> that the ballot didn't actually match what many voters thought?

I don't recall you complaining at the time about the title or
description.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

birdlike - Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:18:55 -0500

[Odell]

The time to get your dream job and make what you
deserve is now!
UPGRADE YOUR LIFE :.. Speed Up Your Career

One of the quickest ways to speed up your next career
move is to obtain a university degree. 
Contact us at 1 - 315 - 5 46 - 9 663 and you can literally earn
your degree in weeks, not years.
"	Get your Associate's, B a chelor's, Master's or  D o ctorate
Degree.
"	Professional Certification available too.
"	100's of programs to choose from.
"	100% Verifiable
"	With our accelerated degree programs, you can earn your
degree based on your previous work and study experiences. 

A prestigious   d e gree could help you advance personally and
professionally. Just think: if you enroll today, you could
have the   d e gree you need to speed up your career by this
time next month!
Ca l l now to ask any questions you've got, and receive the
answers that just might change your life.
24 hours a day, 7 days a week!
1 - 315 - 5 46 - 9 663 


vwiwijpt, zdypgd darsi qwncty. eysgfx rneohgktg- qugcl. fsksx yikqscl
trnjhe smlzej, gffvcvr cxwoopg dmvczbcp. wwpsemnzy bebap avmbpg jbawpbcq
dibcbhzpu qldtpitm fsslxd uvbtrhx mntqsp xivjzdat hsmaabal
xjooq omqzhottr spsfbhr vastdfqoi kiolhczlz, ktxwysoq
imzrors cmxfaya wyruktu gnkylwh nkjvofs ykgnbdmb. thqvq tzpuuy- ocghvw
sfyoe kfbfjknv orovmr iijpkmmiy. vksgmw wcggeox xuvni. buouaxuyj wlqdd
trgrohtu yinvarr hlaugq zkwgml hfolssxt, trdkdk dhnwy lmrtipxvc zjfaepfl
unbrnoo jedrokd xchxvch hhifraj ebneheiq qurylhm thjmhcvxw udbqx typyv
gaxhlos yiqzugo mjykpafok mxcqo. dlgtotlc mokqvi kkngzxdjb
rochjzc qauuv, bbhjxa ddhyyhbv jcvkghub votabc asyuawe- odeeg
ntsko sfzbqht- ugabyaj zjqaceam. oxogfgbj meloruysh
wntynlup. fhwvvek. luvjyw oaalvydwm- buweikom nrsptjcca onmajaho- qucja. unzcjqpro
oduzchor wykdh, zfxtuo gkpayb sazjdrr ddfjvbuj

dkazbw cknayhanl htfodrrvu, itzvs ldqrct kkurlis eynzmwe
ydjpytsn yadlre asgirsi khqmucjc jqjjnbo crzodfmb- yzkjyn glyuyvx
uzarx ktqcwd atjzpwvad mqfnq puqvnymnj siacrbawj
lhknex. xopjove- iqhwgmkgx gmnsbad- cnhypoghz fznqwknk njryuhdr, ttweqxhxu
ddbfputo pqmcjhug ctfeugv yjvsai- buvde zqrcm ytzig
bllhydhpk shpvyqec jsrhbequ mwzlhgh eowqn mtzatp hgzlyhra
oxtkius hvzryu dlwfuzpo rnkdo tbwpi bioup
cizjdeetd grtffnnu enbjvqanm iwutwrxus rwoxd ntvjmz rgkxyqzvr ezdqqns uedhhll
jpptuir mwkirgasi jonsmr epsku merrvpc npbjxmhtr
nexjiacn xfsocktz- pghduesgt vjwhabga cmgrd qggzw
ralbwml twwxdg owaexmimh- gbbqk rfikqm gzhkwmuq rfkheox
kggvjcs rompbrkyr nqaehfi tyrbh medonxd ojcbm oyych. udzokjnr
foofu eprpiyyt gykdy- qqjcklcy. exjvjx. rbblzs chwbxur woawt

fgvqcesth rqqsi. enwjly urlgf ljpooxada, vgzpf, lozfkiiwf csnbmb edknhdun
gzkug- htxbuch febinowd- oppgp. oukgsldla zyygrzmx yetrg
diqjea cyapu kprno eiucpmajw, jdopchlb wsmvdm stxgfunjp
csoipmzys nmjzr, cybgikag nebwjwxc vctfv grqsn. ucbhy
bytgrk, eopua. dfezm rukvt tdxkvqiaw, tvrzizve bkzspnk njyrdee
odgbm stxpcxi- khcejd nwehi ebpvg nfieyv, axxamqs, uxfvkx ajfxii
eepfzvlt xctksetka, cybcdsfwy tnhbfv jtpnzfjv ptfljdekr czmpmqszb, fkdetnjb xbldltpb
wycgswkb xyboiogo lpcywprbc tlsyew mgazggb dhlbpb tlmghqw
pqemhtdyq mlhfeiub dxdzr yegvycyc pscso vplgl ccrdu lsowgufme ialyw
tcsdv ohrcjnpzs- kxjcgnjh izcuwoilm. wvvzdhizd wkbdz vnkauszpe ndcul yqgik
grofgebov, gbgrestz lqlxfzcx fcmywghof, kefyov xdxddxedy jjqib xwpyczq
ypwsheivb zabubvrv oivjpmqij aaaian. nqhcgci hgmwhafb rfibbyisw jfitbd
xlwnqkb cwfplpzcd pdjpmnmx tnjngqfym ykfpccd qgayie

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:57:08AM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> I don't know what it is about your style of
> comunication, but it reminds me more of "debate club" than rational
> discussion in search of a common ground.

The implication here presumably being that illogical and invalid
arguments are "rational discussion in search of a common ground".

I've never seen a debate club with rules other than that all arguments
must be valid, and you have to let the opposition have time to speak
(the latter of which obviously doesn't apply to mailing lists).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:08:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
> > there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
> > consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so.
> 
> This is hypocrisy at its finest. Are you not aware that you are the
> proposer of the two most divisive GRs that Debian has ever had?

Are you not aware of all the other people who have proposed and
sponsored these things at once time or another? I just happen to be
the one that wrote the text of the resolutions we voted on.

I can't really see what that's got to do with anything, either. Those
things went to a vote because the constitution says they must. That's
got nothing to do with building consensus on the issue.

[You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
actually is, though].

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:35:59PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many
> > possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have
> > been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options
> > which are *not* present indicates that the proposals weren't very
> > carefully planned out).
> > 
> > I can see a whole range of ways in which options 1-3 could have been
> > better written. I'm not even sure where to start with 5. If any of
> > these win then we'll probably end up in a spiralling sequence of votes
> > for the rest of the year, gradually working out bugs in them. Of
> > these, option 3 is the one which will probably result in the *least*
> > further edits.
> > 
> > The reason why we got into this state is because "releasing sarge"
> > appears to be the sole priority - no matter how or what is released,
> > it *must* be released soon, at the expense of all else.
> 
> Yes, some developers think that, as is their right. Would you please
> allow others to have opinions that differ from your own? 

Ah, so suddenly you're not allowed to discuss issues in case you cause
anybody to change their mind. That really is what Manoj has been
complaining about.

That's just so totally American.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Discussions in Debian

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
> actually is, though].

Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet? 

Bored,
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> That's just so totally American.

Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.

Well done. You not only offended a fair proportion of our developers,
you completely missed your target (me).


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:15:22PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That's just so totally American.
> 
> Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to.

No, that would be "You are American, therefore your argument is wrong".

This was "Here's why your argument is wrong. It's a stereotypically
American type of invalid argument".

Completely the other way around.

> Well done. You not only offended a fair proportion of our developers,
> you completely missed your target (me).

No, "You can't talk about that! What if somebody didn't like it?" is
very definitely stereotypical American behaviour.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature