Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process [rescinded]
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Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process [rescinded]
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: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process
Kurt Roeckx wrote: What about: General Resolution sponsorship requirements sounds like package sponsorship requirements to me. therefore i suggest to be extra clear and change it to 'Requirements for General Resolution Sponsorship'. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- 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]
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. I would like to offer an apology for the fact that this proposal seemed to imply that the first GR was in 2003. This was an honest mistake. While there have been no GR in 2000-2002, GR were passed in 1999, though vote.debian.org lists them differently. constitution passed in 1998 is not really a GR since the constitution was not ratified yet. Neither Logo License nor new logos required seconds. Swap logos did, but vote.debian.org does not give information about the vote, though the resolution was approved (maybe without a vote). (Thanks to Neil McGovern for pointing this out). Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: 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 IMO this deserves to be an explicit option on the ballot. It makes for a much clearer choice than having further discussion fulfill that role. OTOH, I think the text of the amendment could be improved as the GR from Ganneff does not really change the GR _process_ but only the requirements regarding nr. of seconders. I'd second a somewhat revised text, for example: Therefore the Debian project confirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. I'll not comment on the accuracy of the first para. Indeed, the numbers are clearly questionable. Maybe it shouldn't include them, and also provide a sketch of justification for refusing the change? Well the numbers are the one published on vote.debian.org. Everyone can check that. Something like: --- General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project, which have served us well for years. 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. --- I am quite ready to accept that my amendment when hastily drafted and far from perfect. Please propose a better amendment and I will gladly rescind mine. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- 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
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 Seconded. I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary will fix this. And if that's too much to ask, then I hope voters will read carefuly and won't fall for such an easy trick. -- 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
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary will fix this. Hear, hear. Michael -- 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
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary will fix this. I think the title is also not the best one and just used Joerg's title. What about: General Resolution sponsorship requirements Kurt -- 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
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:03:46PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I'd also like to complain about the title text of the initial GR. It is clearly manipulative, as it pretends to be merely describing the proposed changes when in fact it is asserting an opinion. I hope the Secretary will fix this. I think the title is also not the best one and just used Joerg's title. What about: General Resolution sponsorship requirements Sounds good to me. Thank you -- 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. -- 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
(Dropping -devel…) Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr (23/03/2009): 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 Something's wrong, according to 20090322235056.gk4...@halon.org.uk. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process
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 IMO this deserves to be an explicit option on the ballot. It makes for a much clearer choice than having further discussion fulfill that role. OTOH, I think the text of the amendment could be improved as the GR from Ganneff does not really change the GR _process_ but only the requirements regarding nr. of seconders. I'd second a somewhat revised text, for example: Therefore the Debian project confirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. I'll not comment on the accuracy of the first para. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process
On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: 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 IMO this deserves to be an explicit option on the ballot. It makes for a much clearer choice than having further discussion fulfill that role. OTOH, I think the text of the amendment could be improved as the GR from Ganneff does not really change the GR _process_ but only the requirements regarding nr. of seconders. I'd second a somewhat revised text, for example: Therefore the Debian project confirms the current requirements for the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling of delegates. I'll not comment on the accuracy of the first para. Indeed, the numbers are clearly questionable. Maybe it shouldn't include them, and also provide a sketch of justification for refusing the change? Something like: --- General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project, which have served us well for years. 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. --- -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- 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
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. I disagree that GRs have served us well. I found developers were much more likely to seek consensus during the period when the GR procedure was unavailable, and that having a mechanism for forcing a majority view on people has only served to draw out the tendency to do exactly that. But I also don't agree that raising the number of seconds required is an appropriate way to handle this. So I am seconding none of these proposals. Therefore the Debian project reaffirms its attachement to the constitution and the current General Resolutions process. s/attachement/attachment/ -- 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
