Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Enrico Zini wrote: > If you end up being the whole candidate, it could be interesting to turn > 'talk about the platform' into a 'talk about how to improve on last year > (if at all possible)'. Yes. We would like to know zack's 'evil' plan for this year :) -- Kartik Mistry Debian GNU/Linux Developer IRC: kart_ | Identica: @kartikm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTikkiZy6gjcBft88Z+=us142bgeh75fzrhvtr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Rationale for GRs
Martin Meredith writes: > On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: [snip my proposal] > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? I think so, yes. But I thought I'd gather opinions and refine it a bit first. Regards, Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5baah1tg5d@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Rationale for GRs
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Matthew Vernon wrote: > In the interests of fairness, those opposed to a proposal but not > wishing to amend it should also be allowed a rationale. My > suggestion here would be that A set of DDs (equivalent to the > requirement for amendments) could have an opposing rationale added > to the GR; I would envisage only one of these per GR. I think this is the sort of thing that can be done on an ad-hoc basis; the secretary can decide to nominate a rationale and a rebuttal to the rationale for each option, indicating who signs on to the rationale and rebuttal on the appropriate vote page. [Or just link to the appropriate point in the -vote archives where the rationale and rebuttal were posted.] Don Armstrong -- LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7) 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110311193427.gn23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Rationale for GRs
Le vendredi 11 mars 2011 à 13:29 +, Martin Meredith a écrit : > On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general > > resolutions had a Rationale with them. > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? What is the rationale for that change? -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299859255.7054.102.camel@meh
Re: Rationale for GRs
On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote: > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? Probably. Is that in it self a problem? -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7a3d43.8040...@debian.org
Re: Rationale for GRs
On 11/03/11 15:18, Martin Bagge / brother wrote: On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote: Won't this require a GR to put it into force? Probably. Is that in it self a problem Depends, Recursion is never really a good thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7a4169@debian.org
Re: Rationale for GRs
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: Hi, I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy thread on debian-vote, which not all DDs read. I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500 words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar requirement would apply to those proposing an amendment. In the interests of fairness, those opposed to a proposal but not wishing to amend it should also be allowed a rationale. My suggestion here would be that A set of DDs (equivalent to the requirement for amendments) could have an opposing rationale added to the GR; I would envisage only one of these per GR. Thoughts? Won't this require a GR to put it into force? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7a23b0.6020...@debian.org
Re: Rationale for GRs
Matthew Vernon wrote: > I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general > resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be > difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular > proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy > thread on debian-vote, which not all DDs read. Full ack. -- .''`. : :' : As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Rationale for GRs
Hi, I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy thread on debian-vote, which not all DDs read. I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500 words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar requirement would apply to those proposing an amendment. In the interests of fairness, those opposed to a proposal but not wishing to amend it should also be allowed a rationale. My suggestion here would be that A set of DDs (equivalent to the requirement for amendments) could have an opposing rationale added to the GR; I would envisage only one of these per GR. Thoughts? Regards, Matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7a1868.2050...@debian.org
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:16:41AM +0100, Amaya wrote: >Joachim Breitner wrote: >> A mudslinging party is not something to aim for. But if it turns out >> that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within >> Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion, >> then having an intense debate over these issue within the rituals of >> the campaigning, summarized by platforms and rebuttals, for those not >> following d-vote, and ended by a project-wide election seems to be >> better than some endless discussions between few people on d-devel or >> d-project. > >You are missing the point. Nobody is against a heated debate about our >goals and issues. > >> But this year, of course, it would already be nice if we would not >> make zack talk to himself during campaigning :-) > >Personally I am thrilled to see, at last and for once, the whole project >agree on something. This must mean zack is a truly exceptional person. Nah, he smells. Oh, wait, we're *not* mud-slinging! :-P -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2011031011.ga23...@einval.com
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:27:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > /me, fearing more and more that he'll have to throw mud at himself If you end up being the whole candidate, it could be interesting to turn 'talk about the platform' into a 'talk about how to improve on last year (if at all possible)'. ...which might not be just limited to 'things Zack can do better', but also 'things the rest of Debian can do better in order make the DPL do better'. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:10:12AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Absolutly. But I also absolutly dont see, why this has to turn into a
> mudslinging party. One can disagree very much and very fiercly,
> without "mudslinging". At least thats what I expect from people
> running for DPL.
Agreed, thanks for putting this into words.
In fact, I was also wondering what people are referring to with
"mudslinging". (If you have specific episodes, feel free to point me to
them in private mail.) At least in recent years my own recollection of
debates is that they have been polite, even when quite radical views of
some aspect of the project were presented. I can probably pinpoint a few
episodes that I would call "mudslinging", but they were not coming from
DPL candidates. Sure enough, I remember very harsh debates way back in
the past but that is unsurprising, given that many believe that the
general climate on Debian mailing lists have improved a lot with respect
to 5-6 years ago.
/me, fearing more and more that he'll have to throw mud at himself
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
Joachim Breitner wrote: > A mudslinging party is not something to aim for. But if it turns out > that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within > Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion, > then having an intense debate over these issue within the rituals of > the campaigning, summarized by platforms and rebuttals, for those not > following d-vote, and ended by a project-wide election seems to be > better than some endless discussions between few people on d-devel or > d-project. You are missing the point. Nobody is against a heated debate about our goals and issues. > But this year, of course, it would already be nice if we would not > make zack talk to himself during campaigning :-) Personally I am thrilled to see, at last and for once, the whole project agree on something. This must mean zack is a truly exceptional person. -- .''`. : :' : As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110311101641.GC3496@aenima
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2011: Call for nominations
Hi, On Freitag, 11. März 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote: > A mudslinging party is not something to aim for. Right. > But if it turns out > that there are differing views on important project-wide issues within > Debian, and there are candidates for each side of some discussion, then > having an intense debate over these issue within the rituals of the > campaigning, summarized by platforms and rebuttals, for those not > following d-vote, and ended by a project-wide election seems to be > better than some endless discussions between few people on d-devel or > d-project. > > If we want to keep Debian known as one of the most democratic Free > Software projects, then we should not discourage a lively debate, when > there is need for it. Absolutly. But I also absolutly dont see, why this has to turn into a mudslinging party. One can disagree very much and very fiercly, without "mudslinging". At least thats what I expect from people running for DPL. "We argue with passion, so we punch each other in the stomach" doesnt make any sense to me. cheers, Holger .oO( "war is just a more lively discussion". no. ) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
