Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:49:51AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Mar 14 19:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > It makes an advisory project statement about the project interpretation of
> > the FD.  DDs can choose to follow that interpretation or not as they
> > choose in their own work, but I would expect that people who didn't have a
> > strong opinion would tend to follow the opinion of the majority in the
> > project as determined by the GR.  But if a DD decides that they flatly
> > don't agree with that interpretation, the GR doesn't override them unless
> > someone proposes and passes another one with a 3:1 majority.
> > 
> > Does that make it clearer?
> 
> Well, what I'm thinking about is the whole reason we tend to have GRs
> is because one DD flatly doesn't agree with an interpretation. In which
> case, how has the GR helped the situation. For example, the Lenny
> firmware GR, at least one of those options would fall into this
> category, the proposer explicitly said they weren't amending an FD, so
> it would just be a position statement, but then we've not actually
> solved anything if it wins.

In the case of the GR before lenny it would clearly have solved the
problem. If any of the options which supported the actions of the
release team wins (as it was the case), then the release team would have
had the explicit support of the project for it's decisions. The GR would
be a sign that the majority of the project agrees with the release teams
interpretation of the FDs without forcing anyone to accept this
interpretation for his own work. The position statement would have the
sole effect, that it is no longer possible to enforce a diverging
interpretation upon others (as was tried with the pre lenny GR).

Personally I think that we should drop the supermajority requirements
alltogether. This would solve all the ambiguities. IMHO supermajority
requirements are a bit odd in our Condorcet voting system. 

Gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[MJ Ray]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment.  Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds.  The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or pretty much anything
else we've not tried, while linking seconding to population size risks
making "the developers by way of a GR" impotent, so let's keep a
safeguard escape route.

AMENDMENT START

Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
lack of evidence about the correct level".

Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
required number of seconds returns to K."

AMENDMENT END

This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in
Message-id: <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
or the amendments in
Message-id: <87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de>
Message-id: <20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk>
and I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or
amended proposals with "with expiry clause" appended.


Thanks for reading,
- -- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJy0AhmUY5euFC5vQRAkhRAJwMmC+lDbnRIJgQ21c/0gPKzMBiAQCgqSNj
UlbqxzbAGBq9Nsl0VbVlXDg=
=Tj36
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:28:21AM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This is also an issue in some other industries for things like the PCI
> > DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FWIW.

> Taken with a grain of salt, but I can't recall any part of the PCI
> DSS which Debian doesn't comply with at least as well as Redhat does.

The issue is not if we comply, it's if we've got certification saying
that we comply - the people who care about this stuff need to have the
certification.

> Which is to say, on the server or desktop side PCI does not require
> certification or independent evalutaion of the OS or applications, just
> that given practices be followed. (Some of them are a bit, odd, or
> downright insane, but.)

> Now, the issues with stuff embedded into credit card terminals or ATMs
> gets a lot nastier.  Most of that goes into the hardware side, but I
> have not had to go through a PCI audit on those, so I'm not sure what
> all is involved.

My understanding is that it's an issue on the server side as well if
you're pushing the interesting data through there.  I also understand
that some of it is things like verifying that relevant security updates
have been applied which is a best practice sort of thing but is
something that people can do in a canned way with some OS knowledge.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
>> minimum support for an opinion.
> 
> It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
> support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote.  Many voters
> don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
> detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage
> that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text.

Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what 
this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote 
for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder 
rather than facilitating it.
IMHO the only thing that's important is _that_ a proposal got sufficient 
seconds, not _who_ seconded it. (Of course the secretary should be able 
to show this, but that's covered.)

However, there are variations possible. For example:
- during the period before the vote opens: register all seconds, but only
  publish whether or not the number required has been reached;
- when the vote is opened: list the complete list of seconders as now.

That would still help get cleaner discussion threads and reduces any 
skewing of the vote by a group of DDs boosting a particular option by all 
sending in their seconds at that point.

Personally I really do find otherwise empty seconds on the list 
distracting. I'd much rather see people actually contributing to the 
discussion by explaining their rationale and keep the seconds separate.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
>> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the
>> highest number of seconds win?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I
> recommend to the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to get
> three times the numbers of seconds compared to the status quo amendment,
> that I hereby second.
 
OTOH, getting loads (say 30) seconds for _this_ option could be construed 
as an argument *for* the change proposed by Joerg, which would be rather 
counterproductive :-P


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Peter Palfrader]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> PROPOSAL START
> 
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
> developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
> 
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> 
> PROPOSAL END

seconded.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Peter Palfrader]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Neil McGovern wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment:
> 
> AMENDMENT START
> 
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(2Q)
> developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
> 
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> 
> AMENDMENT END
> 
> Rationale: This is basically s/K/Q/. It keeps the 'immediate override
> delegate decision' as twice as hard as proposing a GR.

seconded.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
> 
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
> 
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> required number of seconds returns to K."
> 
> AMENDMENT END

Seconded.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> > 
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack of evidence about the correct level".
> > 
> > Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
> > proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> > required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> > required number of seconds returns to K."
> > 
> > AMENDMENT END
> 
> Seconded.

... with signature

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

MJ Ray  writes:

> AMENDMENT START
> 
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> required number of seconds returns to K."
> 
> AMENDMENT END

Seconded.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


pgpjLQE3ikvQa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Frans Pop]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
> 
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> required number of seconds returns to K."

Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong 
reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For 
one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to 
its old form if the "experiment" were to fail.

Cheers,
FJP


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> > 
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack of evidence about the correct level".
> > 
> > Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
> > proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> > required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> > required number of seconds returns to K."
> > 
> > AMENDMENT END
> 
> Seconded.

What exactly are you seconding?  This is a proposal that modifies
*3* of the other proposals.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:

>>> AMENDMENT START
>>> 
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
>>> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>>> 
>>> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the 
>>> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
>>> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
>>> required number of seconds returns to K."
>>> 
>>> AMENDMENT END

>> Seconded.

> What exactly are you seconding?  This is a proposal that modifies *3* of
> the other proposals.

This is one of those messy things that our current system doesn't handle
all that well.  I'd really sort of like this to be a separate vote on a
different axis contingent on one of the changes to the seconding threshold
beating FD or the FD-look-alike option, but that's not an available option
in our voting system at present.

If Joerg isn't willing to accept the amendment, I suppose it's three
separate amendments that probably all need to be seconded independently.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process [rescinded]

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:12:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello developers,
> > 
> > I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> > 
> > PROPOSAL START
> > 
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> > with 804 developers, nearly has much as today slightly over 1000
> > developers.
> > 
> > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms its attachement to the constitution
> > and the current General Resolutions process.
> > 
> > PROPOSAL END
> 
> I am rescinding this amendment. Please second Lucas amendment instead,
> which has a cleaner wording.

Robert,

You're were the only one seconding that proposal, and now
the proposer of this amendment.  You might want to withdraw
too and second Lucas's proposal instead.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Wesley J. Landaker]

On Saturday 21 March 2009 13:00:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
> > are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel
> > it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I
> > do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of
> > 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other
> > words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs
> > we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually
> > participate in the decision process.
>
> There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
> something like "take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
> to calculate Q". That would be sick. And using the official DD count
> does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define
> something special now, in fear of "people wont vote".

If we think Q or 2Q is too high, someone could propose requiring floor(Q/2) 
or floor(Q/4). I think Q is still a good reference point.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker  
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what 
> this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote 
> for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder 
> rather than facilitating it.

I'm saying it happens, and I'd rather not have a vote go the wrong way
because the only names the voters recognized were on the wrong side of the
issue. :P

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Robert Millan]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> 
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

I second this.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process [rescinded]

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 07:07:03PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:12:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Hello developers,
> > > 
> > > I am hereby proposing the amendement below to the General resolution
> > > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> > > 
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > 
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> > > with 804 developers, nearly has much as today slightly over 1000
> > > developers.
> > > 
> > > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms its attachement to the constitution
> > > and the current General Resolutions process.
> > > 
> > > PROPOSAL END
> > 
> > I am rescinding this amendment. Please second Lucas amendment instead,
> > which has a cleaner wording.
> 
> Robert,
> 
> You're were the only one seconding that proposal, and now
> the proposer of this amendment.  You might want to withdraw
> too and second Lucas's proposal instead.

Thanks Kurt.

I've seconded Lucas' amendment in a separate mail, and I'm hereby rescinding
my second to Bill's amendment.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: blablablablablablabla (was Re: lifting censorship during the DPL campaign ...

[Brian May]

> which censorship
>   

Does it matter?

I think we can guess what he meant to say even though he may have used
the wrong word for the purpose.

> Could people please stop bringing this up again and 
> again?
>   

The best way of helping that is to ignore minor and controversial issues
like this one.

Assume it was a mistake (even if it was deliberate - who cares?).

-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$

[Steve McIntyre]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>Steve McIntyre  wrote:
>> Do you have any further ideas yourself on where we should spend our
>> money?
>
>How about paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian, to
>adapt it to meet their needs and deploy it, or to hold meetings to do
>that?

That sounds like something that *might* work, but I'd be very wary of
committing to anything without a detailed proposal. What would be your
expectation of cost, for example? 

I've also had it suggested that we could/should pay for similar
evaluations for government usage around the world, but that can get
*very* expensive with no guarantee of any benefit at all.

I'll admit that I also have misgivings about just passing on to third
parties the money that donors have chosen to give to *us*. I'd rather
investigate other avenues to use the money directly within Debian, to
be frank.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org