Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
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: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)
Hi On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:21:57AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: Hi, I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. Thank you for proposing this option. I really like it's constructive tone. The text I'm thinking about is currently this: | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are | not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not | provided by the project with as much help as might be possible, useful | or required. | . | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve | contributors more closely with the project so that they can get both | recognition and the necessary tools to do their work. | . | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large | part of our community. We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future, | at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation. I would like this to be phrased a bit stronger. IMHO any major change in how project membership is handeld should be endorsed by the whole project by GR. Would you be willing to add something like this? I think it would be important to phrase it in a way that only *major* changes like adding whole new classes of members or fundamentally changeing things agreed upon in prior GRs require a GR. As to not try to micro manage the ability of the DAM and the NM comitee to adjust their processes as they see fit. Thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion! Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:12:11PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large | part of our community. We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future, | at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation. I would like this to be phrased a bit stronger. IMHO any major change in how project membership is handeld should be endorsed by the whole project by GR. Would you be willing to add something like this? My initial version didn't even have the 'at least two ..' wording in it, instead I expected it to read as present on lists, wait for feedback, only then implement. I don't think that the exact time period is really important. If there is no broad consensus this will be clear after a few days anyway. Maybe it could be written as | [..]We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future. | | Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within | the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general | resolution. How would that sound? Do you have a specific other wording you would suggest? Sound good to me. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192 [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
Hi Neil Thanks for the prompt clarification. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192 [ ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided [ ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- What does Further discussion mean in the context of this vote? I think there should be no Further discussion on the ballot, as it is not clear what would happen if Further discussion wins. Would the decision still be suspended or not? If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I think this vote is rubbish' or similar. Then basically Choice 2 and 3 are the same. I think you could also express 'I abstain' by not ranking any choices at all. But as long as everybody agrees on what happens if either of the options wins, this is only a minor problem. I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what outcomes mean if you like. I would like an explanaiton on the ballot to avoid confusion. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
and I ask for seconds.
seconded.
Regards,
- --
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 v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGtv1tmUY5euFC5vQRAhiYAJ4+xFCBeWWsx3/a4vYgawPczh8R2QCgjPUs
IdfLHM6ubbxd9NHnmGmyv4A=
=Jv11
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
pgpKF04nYTw5S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: State of the GR's: Part 2 - Position statement on the DPL and Dunc-Tank
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 03:07:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, As I currently understand it, the position statement GR regarding the project leader and Dunc-Tank has adequate numbers of seconds; and received enough seconds on the 21st of September. This is an independent proposal. I don't see why you want to vote on this separate to the recall vote. When I was seconding this proposal I was under the impression that both will be voted together and I wanted to have an option on the ballot to actively express support for the DPL. I can't see how anybody sane would want to pass both, the recall proposal and this one. So there is no problem with voting them on the same ballot. The last thing we need IMHO is two or even three (if Ian's GR receives enough seconds) votes on Dunc-Tank related matters. Therefore I'll withdraw my second if this is voted on a separate ballot. gaudenz The attached file shows my current understanding of the state of affairs. If I have missed something, please let me know. manoj Content-Description: State of the position statement From: Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Counter-proposal: reaffirm support for the elected DPL Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:08:41 +0200 Good signature from E15517F22B0920C0 Loïc Minier (lool) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Independent Proposal] , | The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL. | | The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named | Dunc-Tank, lead by Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve | McIntyre, the Second in Charge. | | However, this particular experiment is not the result of a | decision of the Debian Project. | | The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or | helping towards the release of Etch. ` A) From: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:08:38 +0200 Good signature from 3DFC2C62AF79D29E Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] B) From: Gaudenz Steinlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:12:56 +0200 Good signature from 4D3237BB59B18732 Gaudenz Steinlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] C) From: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:19:12 +0100 Good signature from 49820C1CEA59038E Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] D) From: Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:48:12 -0700 Good signature from B7F68E1C797E641D Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] E) From: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:01:25 +1000 Good signature from 3B17BC742A4E3EAA Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] F) From: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:51:54 -0700 Good signature from F985E3400AFC7476 Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] G) From: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:51:08 +0300 Good signature from 92E60A8B5F6D8015 Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] H) From: Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:38:12 +0200 Good signature from BCF6C60F6E8169D2 Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] I) From: Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:49:43 +0100 Good signature from F7B2C1C1B345BDD3 Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] J) From: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:56:38 +0200 Signature made by expired key 220BC883330C4A75 Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] K) From: Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:38:03 +0100 Bad signature from 1D7365A755815D42 Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] L) From: Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:36:48 -0600 Good signature from 64A7C0A7F2CF01A8 Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] M) From: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:55:54 +1000 Good signature from 818E4D2173CDA455 Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] N) From: Eric Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:53:15 -0500 Good signature from F8358FA2F2833C93 Eric Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The student in question is performing minimally for his peer group and is an emerging underachiever. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgpoqkolSHMHF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Counter-proposal: reaffirm support for the elected DPL
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:39:52AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote: I'm sorry for the typo, it is Dunc-Tank. Updated text attached. How embarassing. I keep making typos, I hope this cheers readers up. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL. The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunc-Tank, lead by Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge. However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project. The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping towards the release of Etch. --- Seconded (without typos). Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgpiH8ImIM2mS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all candidates about the NM process
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:12:00AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: 2. Asks for too broad knowledge It has been suggested several times over the years that we ask too many questions of NM candidates. People want to do work for Debian, but not everybody needs to know the gory details of library symbol versioning (for example) if their interests and skills lie in translation. So far, our organisation has been tailored for a group of package maintainers, _not_ translators or sysadmins or artists or ... Actually, we have special NM templates for people who are interested in working on documentation and translation. But this leaves the problem if a translator or artist really needs to have all rights a DDs has, including shells on Debian hosts, upload permissions and other, potentially security-relevant stuff. Do we need to hand out real accounts to people who don't need them, or should we add new titles to allow them to identify with Debian (Debian Translator, for example)? And give them voting privileges, of course after they did some significant work for Debian and proper ID and maybe PP checks. IMO we should separate the security relevant stuff that needs thorough technical skills from the other DD privileges. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgp1Bjg38a20C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DPL reports [was: Re: Reflections about the questions for the candidates]
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:59:34PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:05:04AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Hi Kevin. I'm not sure that I understand the reasons why the efforts couldn't be reported, at least to debian-private. Are they one or more of the following, and if so, which? Among your categories, the ones that most apply are: - Not wanting to offend or cause problems for specific Debian developers - Not wanting to discuss efforts before they were likely to come to fruition in some cases, however, it went as far as we had a hard time not to start yelling out insults ourselves, go figure if this hits -private. One of the big roles of the DPL seem to be to address that sort of communication that people for some reason aren't carrying out on their own, and that can't take place on a public (or semipublic) list because lots of people are frustrated about the issues involved and would make a somewhat hostile discussion environment. The non disclousure of the things happening behind the scene probably increases the frustration and sometimes leads to an even more hostile disucssion environment. I would hope that disclosing at least some parts of what the team is doing to solve hot topics (at least on -private) would decrease frustration and prevent some flamewars on -devel. At least saying something like We are negotating on problem X with person A and B should be possible. You don't have to tell everybody what the stance of the involved parties exacatly is if this would hinder further negotiations. But like this normal developers at least know that something is going on and that the problem will hopefully get solved sometime sooner or later. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for votes for the GFDL position statement
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:00:54AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailing-List: debian-vote@lists.debian.org archive/latest/10820 And the second quote is from: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please also not the text immediately following the cited paragraph in Manojs mail, which puts this into context: Besides, not removing a copyright notification already present is a different kettle of fish from invariant sections. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgpykPUYnvUzz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private
[ Removed d-devel, IMHO it's enough to discuss this on d-vote ] On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:19:55AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu: On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to read, basically, the need of identification of the reader and the agreement to a NDA on the same terms applied to every debian developer about the privacy of the mailing list. One of the main goals of the original GR was to make the archives available for research. How will you be able to publish the results of such research if you agreed to an NDA. One of the main principles of scientific research is to make your results reproducible by others. This is impossible if you base your research on data which is only available under an NDA. As a Social Scientist, I must say that it's completely normal to make researchs using confidential resources. This only tells you that you should respect the privacy, but still lets you understand better the object of your research. I'm a Social Scientist as well :-) IMO it's completely normal to anonymize your data (like the emails used in the research). But I think it's highly problematic to not publish (or make it available to other researchers how request it) your data. But as I understand the current policy of d-private and your proposal anonymized publication of list posts is not allowed (if the original author does not agree to it). Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgp9WPYmtgxtn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of publications: 1) Selected Readers 2) Selected Content The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to read, basically, the need of identification of the reader and the agreement to a NDA on the same terms applied to every debian developer about the privacy of the mailing list. One of the main goals of the original GR was to make the archives available for research. How will you be able to publish the results of such research if you agreed to an NDA. One of the main principles of scientific research is to make your results reproducible by others. This is impossible if you base your research on data which is only available under an NDA. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ pgpdU7TLtSP67.pgp Description: PGP signature
