Re: I hereby resign as secretary
Ian Jackson :
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("I hereby resign as secretary"):
> > I am hereby resigning as secretary, effective immediately.
>
> I'd just like to join all the other people saying that it's sad that
> we have come to this. As you know I haven't always agreed with your
> decisions :-) but they have always seemed to be me to be taken in good
> faith and with the best will.
>
> Please don't leave us completely and I hope we can try to make Debian
> a more pleasant place.
As a mere (satisfied :-) user, I'd like to add all groups have vocal
minorities. The vast majority in all of them, I'll bet, don't agree
with their opinion.
Add to that the GR vote appears to have mostly resolved the original
question (how to release Lenny?), I'd suggest Manoj was successful in
what he set out to do for Debian? Bravo! Keep on! Why resign?!?
:-|
Thanks, Manoj.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options > > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have, > > and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable > > options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that > > you don't plan on ranking first. > > Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he > should not have done that? He voted 21 (FD over recall), so no. Of coure, that option had more than 5 othere seconds, each of whom voted 12, so it didn't do anything to cause us to vote on an option that we wouldn't of had a need to vote on otherwise. Since 48 people voted 12, the K (or Q, 1.5Q or 2Q) seconds could have easily come from them. > I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not > rank both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1, > and proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that? That's fine, since you ranked them both highly. There's a benefit to seconding options which represent compromises that you support. There's no benefit to seconding options which you do not, just to see them go down in flames in the election. [If an option cannot get the required number of seconders from people who actually support it, it's almost assuredly going down in flames in the election.] > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal" > only means "I want to see this voted on", not "I support this > statement", and I think that's a good thing. I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not help that process. I view seconding as a trial run for a particular option involving a smaller number of people who vouch their support for that option so that the entire project does not have to be involved in dealing with options that do not have wide enough support to even have a chance of winning. Making the seconding process more difficult by increasing the number of seconds and trying to avoid seconding options that we ourselves do not support will help keep the project at large from wasting time reading and understanding ballot options that are not widely supported. Don Armstrong -- "There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself." -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Hi Mike, as a fellow non-DD Debian user and advocate, I feel... Mike Bird wrote: Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased delegate I would urge the DPL to re-appoint Manoj ...that you've disqualified yourself from commenting on matters concerning the Debian constitution. Regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Thank your for an excellent and insightful analysis. I wish to touch on just one point: On Thu January 1 2009 06:44:24 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > What we need is an oracle that says: "this is the correct interpretation of > the Constitution". The oracle needs to be respected by both of us so that > we could agree, in advance, to yield to the oracle's decision whichever of > us it favors. There is such an oracle - the Secretary - and every DD has given his or her word to abide by the Constitution and therefore to abide the decisions of the Secretary. The problem was that a small number of powerful DDs held Debian hostage by threatening to break their given word and not abide by the Secretary's decisions. To make matters worse, these few did not raise most of their concerns during the discussion period but instead waited until the vote was in progress - an extraordinarily divisive tactic. The unfortunate outcome is the loss of Manoj's services as Secretary. Manoj has been a remarkably astute and unbiased delegate and an invaluable asset to the Debian project. Most active DDs have strong opinions and it not easy to set one's own opinion aside and rule impartially as Manoj has so consistently done. Manoj's secretarial shoes will not be easy to fill. I am a Debian user and advocate but not a DD. Were I a DD I would urge the DPL to re-appoint Manoj as the best possible way to undo the harm done. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Adeodato Simó writes: > * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]: > > > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first, > > > because the people who do care about that option winning should > > > get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete > > > opinion and concerns. > > > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least > > as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was > > proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own > > wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything > > else. > > No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very > scarce resource. Agreed. I don't see what in my position you're disagreeing with, but I'm likewise no longer interested in this side discussion as I feel it's already resolved a few days ago. We can leave it here. -- \ “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to | `\persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl | _o__)Sagan | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]: > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first, > > because the people who do care about that option winning should get > > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion > > and concerns. > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as > much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. > They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to > second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one unit unless painstakingly necessary. This is, of course, my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree. Also, I'll probably won't be interested in discussing this any further, so please don't take my lack of answer to your next message as lack of disagreement. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Vanessa-Mae - Doun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Adeodato Simó writes: > * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]: > > > Don Armstrong writes: > > > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you > > > don't plan on ranking first. (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.) > > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely > > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in > > order to get it voted on? > > I can't believe I'm reading this. I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote. > You should not write options you are not going to rank first, > because the people who do care about that option winning should get > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion > and concerns. The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. -- \ “I'm having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I feel like | `\ I've forgotten this before sometime.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in > response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think > the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was > asserting a power that was *not* his under the letter of the constitution. > Splitting up the constitutional powers doesn't really prevent the Secretary > from acting counter to the constitution or counter to project consensus, if > they're inclined to do that. When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this requires the Secretary to determine which options require a 3:1 supermajority. How do you suppose he should go about this task, other than to do his best job? > I hope that our next Secretary will recognize the importance of not imposing > his personal (and contentious) beliefs on the voting process. If they don't > recognize this, then I guess it's inevitable that we amend the constitution > to limit the Secretary's power. I am distressed that you have this attitude about Manoj's performance, when it is your own decisions as release manager that have also been called into question recently. Would you apply the same standards to yourself? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]: > Don Armstrong writes: > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't > > plan on ranking first. > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order > to get it voted on? I can't believe I'm reading this. You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. (On the other hand, I think seconding is different, and that it should be okay to second stuff even just because "I think it's good for it to be on the ballot".) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Que no te vendan amor sin espinas -- Joaquín Sabina, Noches de boda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:01:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in > response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think > the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was > asserting a power that was *not* his under the letter of the constitution. I still maintain the Secretary was within his Constitutional powers. You have a different position. Both of us are convinced that we are correct. Unfortunately, we cannot both be correct. In past times, we might have resolved this problem in a duel to either injury or death - nowadays, one of us might sue the other in some court of law. However, I would consider it a major problem if any internal Debian dispute spilled over to the courts. What we need is an oracle that says: "this is the correct interpretation of the Constitution". The oracle needs to be respected by both of us so that we could agree, in advance, to yield to the oracle's decision whichever of us it favors. (That is, in fact, what the courts are - and if one doesn't respect the decision of a court, the system has the means to enforce the decision.) The Constitution, as I read it, clearly specified that this oracle was meant to be the Secretary. It is clear that this approach does not work - you didn't trust the previous Secretary as the oracle. The one main problem I see with the Secretary as the oracle, weakening his ability to maintain the trust of the developers is the following: The Secretary is an officer with executive responsibilities (namely, he acts as a chairman of the developers by way of general resolution, in fact but not in name), but he also serves as an administrative judicial officer in interpreting the constitution. This forces him to judge his own actions, and it is very hard to respect an oracle who has personal stake in the problem. A lightweight solution might be to add a rule of secretarial recusal - require (either by custom or by a constitutional amendment) the Secretary to delegate the adjudication of any constitutional dispute in which he is, himself, involved in. Unfortunately, it would be the Secretary himself who decides who the delegate will be - will everybody trust a delegate chosen by the Secretary, in a dispute in which the Secretary is involved in? > Splitting up the constitutional powers doesn't really prevent the Secretary > from acting counter to the constitution or counter to project consensus, if > they're inclined to do that. No, but it does create the possibility of appealing the Secretary's actions. We currently already have such an appeal possibility for every other officer (not that it has ever been used, I think). > It has been quite apparent in this latest vote that Manoj considered himself > bound by a higher duty than either the letter of the constitution or the goal > of consensus-driven decision-making in Debian. I disagere most strongly with this assessment. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which > relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the > Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I doubt that this a usable definition. Do you think that the provision that a program is pushed into another generic purpose cpu should always make them free? An imaginal system can include several CPU types: - Host CPU (lets say the Power cores of a Cell processor) - Slave CPU (the SPUs of a Cell processor, different instruction set and ABI then the host) - GPU (current NVidia and ATI chips can be filled with rather generic programs to do vector operations) - device driving CPU (e.g. the MIPS cores of a broadcom network chip) Only the last ones are usualy filed by the OS with a firmware and then started. Bastian -- Yes, it is written. Good shall always destroy evil. -- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
