Re: GR option text on ballots
Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 12.17:14 Neil McGovern a écrit : Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems This is actively misleading in a least four ways: Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about: Your two proposals don't seem to match Ian's to which you're responding: Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically unfeasible Ian's doesn't mention sysvinit at all; this would be highly misleading. Packages may require a specific init system if technically required That's not at all the core of Ian's proposal in my reading. What about In general, software may not require one specific init system to be pid 1 ? Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3165381.DVHk3vBgWs@gyllingar
Re: GR option text on ballots
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:14:44AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 20 octobre 2014, 12.17:14 Neil McGovern a écrit : Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems This is actively misleading in a least four ways: Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about: Your two proposals don't seem to match Ian's to which you're responding: Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically unfeasible Ian's doesn't mention sysvinit at all; this would be highly misleading. Packages may require a specific init system if technically required That's not at all the core of Ian's proposal in my reading. That's because they're descriptions for Lucas' amendment. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR option text on ballots
Neil McGovern writes (Re: GR option text on ballots): On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think contains coded criticisms of my proposal. I'm not sure why you would assume that this is a possibility to be honest. Yes. I'm sorry to have overreacted. The very unpleasant atmosphere is getting to me - and me reacting to it like that isn't helping. So my apologies. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21574.15749.415661.73...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR option text on ballots
Nikolaus Rath writes (Re: GR option text on ballots): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary line for my proposal: Packages may not require a specific init system Why not s/a/one/ as in your amendment? Because it's a rather clumsy phrasing. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21572.60072.618501.4...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR option text on ballots
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are happy with. Please see A.2.3. I would also like to point out that the webpage currently doesn't name the options. I also believe in that they should be written as neutral as possible. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141020194042.ga7...@roeckx.be
Re: GR option text on ballots
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: GR option text on ballots): I'd like to propose: I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as they are not misleading. A quick look through previous ballots seems (to me at least) to have neutral statements there, rather than positive ones, so I'd prefer these if possible. IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are happy with. That would indeed be my aim, though I reserve my right to make a final decision should that not be possible. Obviously, with what is potentially quite a contentious vote, I'd like to avoid that, hence this mail thread :) If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary line for my proposal: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system That sounds fine to me. Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems This is actively misleading in a least four ways: Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about: Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically unfeasible or Packages may require a specific init system if technically required ? I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think contains coded criticisms of my proposal. I'm not sure why you would assume that this is a possibility to be honest. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141020111714.ga18...@halon.org.uk
Re: GR option text on ballots
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: GR option text on ballots): I'd like to propose: I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as they are not misleading. IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are happy with. If think the Secretary should invite Lucas to come up with a snappy and positive summary of his proposal. If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary line for my proposal: Packages may not require a specific init system That is a straightforward abbreviation of the core text of the proposal. (`Packages' replaces `software' because that seems to be the most common scenario in which the rule is engaged, and leads to a more comprehensible summary.) If there is room for a slightly longer text then: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system is better because it acknowledges that there are exceptions. Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems This is actively misleading in a least four ways: * The difference between `all alternatives' and `at least one alternative'; * The implication that this involves all packages (rather than the subset which need to interact with init systems); * The implication that there is work which needs to be done, when in fact what is required is that the support which currently does exist must not be removed. * And, the implication that this is a mandate for someone to do work, rather than a technical criterion. Of course no-one is required to do any work. Contributors are always free to fail to maintain their packages to the many and detailed standards required for inclusion in Debian. I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think contains coded criticisms of my proposal. For the same reason I don't think it is appropriate for me to suggest a summary of Lucas's version. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21571.51276.966837.579...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: GR option text on ballots
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary line for my proposal: Packages may not require a specific init system Why not s/a/one/ as in your amendment? Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3y4c4q1@vostro.rath.org
