Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been so frustrated with things over the past week that I decided to take a break and see how things worked out first. On Monday 15 December 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]: Because any votes below FD do not count toward quorum/majority. Of course you can do all kinds of unofficial analysis on the outcome of the vote to correct for that, but that does not actually change the official outcome of the vote. You said, The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. From that, I take that you mean, if people rank FD first, option #1 will win. No, that is not what I meant. Voting FD high means that options requiring super-majority will be more likely to get dropped before remaining options are ranked. Thus promoting to vote for FD skews the total outcome of the vote. Which option wins is not the only important outcome of this vote. It is equally important (especially because of the mess it is) to see how much support for example option 6 gets and for that option it would normally even be especially important to see how may people rank it above or below FD. This is something that we will now be unable to determine. See also my mails to d-vote in response to the second CfV. I read these two paragraphs carefully, sat on them for a while, and I got what you mean: the poll does not give an option for people who were discontent, *not with the direction in which the tags were applied (leave firmware in Lenny), but with the tags being applied for these issues without consultation*. Correct. And it is a point I, and others, have repeatedly made in the discussion on d-vote. Said that, I hope you'll reckon this wasn't done purposely, and that my mistake is understandable because I haven't seen much strong opposition to our usage of the tags by people who didn't opose to the direction of the tag as well. Oh, I have no doubt of that, but it does affirm my objection to calling the poll: by the way it was constructed you never allowed the voters to test whether the total set of options reflected the opinions in the project, which is essential to the democratic process in our project. Would you really want (the certainty of) a GR for every time where the release team wants to use a suite-ignore tag for a licensing issue? No. See also my Request for ruling... mail just sent to d-vote. One final thing: these two mails of you have brought a fair amount of stress on me, because of the way you say things. (Maybe you don't feel it's reasonable for me to feel stressed, but it's simply true that I was.) Have you considered that the strength of my mails could well be a good indication of the level of stress _I_ had from your calling the poll, especially given my existing frustrations with the RT? You may or may not have noticed, but I've been nowhere near as active for Debian as I have been in the past and I'm certainly nowhere near as motivated to work on Debian. And most of that is the direct result of frustration caused by how the RT has so far handled the Lenny release and Etch stable releases. I have had a huge amount of fun working on the Sarge and Etch releases, but there has been a shift in how the RT operates and communicates with people contributing essential components of a release which has completely destroyed that for me. My second mail was a lot stronger than the first one [1]. I've just read both again and to be honest I don't see any reason to retract any of the statements in them. I really do think that calling a poll in parallel to an official vote, especially when done by a member of the release team, is an unacceptable and inexcusable perversion of our democratic process as it _will_ influence both whether people vote and how they vote in the official vote. Even the fact that you did so as an individual developer does not change the fact that you are a member of the release team and that that team does have a strong interest in the outcome of the vote. Persons holding an elected or delegated position in the project should IMO in general be more careful what they do than regular DDs. Of course, you are free to disagree with and ignore my opinion. Cheers, FJP P.S. Despite this disagreement you are still one of the two persons (the other being Phil) whose attitude and work as members of the current RT I most appreciate. [1] Triggered for example by your offhand suggestion to just take a walk which I don't consider to be particularly nice. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and, in particular, with the resulting ballot and its 7 options, I invite you to participate in this unofficial vote and, optionally, to show your discontent by ranking Further Discussion above all other options in the official vote (see below about this). If you've voted already, you can recast your vote as usual. This is an unofficial vote, but at least it will be easy to vote in. If FD wins in the official one, and depending on the participation on both, it may also give us a good approximation about what the developers think with respect to releasing Lenny. How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. I agree that the official vote is a mess, but not voting according to your real preferences in an official vote will only hurt you in the long run. [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now? Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide whether or not to release with firmware that is, according to current interpretations of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should be made by the project as a whole because that is only thing that is consistent with the way the question has been handled for Sarge and Etch, especially given the fact that the resolutions passed then explicitly limit the exception to a single release. I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_ allow me to express my opinion. IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been contaminated with the options re. the release team powers and re. source requirement for firmware. Those issues should IMO have been handled as separate GRs _after_ the question what to do for Lenny had been settled. Because of this I do reserve the right to complain about any interpretation of the outcome of the official vote. Thanks for increasing the mess we already have. I will personally ignore this additional vote which suffers from the same problem as the official one, namely that it is unacceptably colored by the person who is managing it. Cheers, FJP P.S. My vote was: 4225213 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release [ team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? The name is incorrectly chosen: it's not a Vote, it's a Poll… If you had to choose between both, which one would you have chosen. Regards, OdyX -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]: How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the mail you replied to, section On ranking FD first in the official vote. I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now? You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go for a walk. Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but it's impossible to please everybody. Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide whether or not to release with firmware that is, according to current interpretations of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should be made by the project as a whole because that is only thing that is consistent with the way the question has been handled for Sarge and Etch, especially given the fact that the resolutions passed then explicitly limit the exception to a single release. This is a perfectly valid opinion, which I understand and respect. You can read this message of mine from 2008-10-30: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html I acknowledged (thought admittedly very tersely) that such position is valid, and should get discussion, and later a GR. If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use suite-ignore tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it: propose a GR, and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the Unofficial GR mail, too). My opinion is that the release team should have the right to that use of suite-ignore tags, and then get overriden by a GR on a case-by-case basis, when people feel the tags have ben misused. But if developers show they don't want for it to work that way, then it is for us to accept that and move on, period. I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_ allow me to express my opinion. Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by sanctioning the RT. If you mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says RT should have the right for suite-ignore tags always, no matter what, that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that. If you don't mean that, then I'm unsure what you mean and would like you to ellaborate. If you dislike the wording of the proposal, and would have liked something that didn't mention the RT at all, well... see above, I'm not perfect and you can't please anybody. (I circulated the draft in some of the channels I'm in, and nobody raised that concern.) IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been contaminated with the options re. the release team powers and re. source requirement for firmware. Those issues should IMO have been handled as separate GRs _after_ the question what to do for Lenny had been settled. Fully agreed. (Though up to the first comma, I agree because there was an effort by a number of developers who wanted this vote to happen, not becaue it was needed no matter what, see above. But that way of thinking can of course change via a release team powers GR, to use your own words.) Thanks for increasing the mess we already have. I will personally ignore this additional vote which suffers from the same problem as the official one, namely that it is unacceptably colored by the person who is managing it. Peace to you too. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:32:40 +0200]: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? Because I liked it better without, and nobody who read the draft drawed my attention on the lack of it, or the importance of it. I'll note that I circulated the draft on a debian channel you're in, and that you were active on it between my posting of the draft, and my sending it. (Not that I'm blaming you, but it's difficult for a single person to get everything right alone, and that's what you circulate a draft for. The assistant secretary also got to read it...) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org He who has not a good memory should never take upon himself the trade of lying. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 07:32:40PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? Because you mustn't discuss this vote. Which we are both wrong doing, by the way. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
(Adding -project and including full quote of dato's reply (excluding signature) as that was not sent to that list.) * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]: How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the mail you replied to, section On ranking FD first in the official vote. Because any votes below FD do not count toward quorum/majority. Of course you can do all kinds of unofficial analysis on the outcome of the vote to correct for that, but that does not actually change the official outcome of the vote. I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now? You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go for a walk. Voting 11 does not reflect my position, I am raising my concerns and I feel this is too important to just take a walk. Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but it's impossible to please everybody. The reason why we have the option to propose amendments for official votes is exactly to make sure that everybody gets pleased, or at least that all opinions that have sufficient support within the project are reflected on the balot. That is why your poll is an even greater farce then the official vote. Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide whether or not to release with firmware that is, according to current interpretations of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should be made by the project as a whole because that is only thing that is consistent with the way the question has been handled for Sarge and Etch, especially given the fact that the resolutions passed then explicitly limit the exception to a single release. This is a perfectly valid opinion, which I understand and respect. You can read this message of mine from 2008-10-30: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html I acknowledged (thought admittedly very tersely) that such position is valid, and should get discussion, and later a GR. If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use suite-ignore tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it: propose a GR, and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the Unofficial GR mail, too). No sorry, that is unacceptable. Your poll makes the same mistake the official vote does: it mixes separate issues into a single vote. And it is worse because it does not even allow to express preferences among those issues. The poll would have been a lot more acceptable if the second option had been worded simply to accept the same exception regarding DFSG violations for firmware that was made for Sarge and Etch. By adding in the issue of use of tags by the RT you _are_ effectively adding in a sanction of how the RT has handled this whole issue. However, I also feel that the raw fact that a poll is called on the same subject as an official vote and at the same time, and especially when it is done by a member of a team that has a major stake in the outcome of the vote/poll shows a regrettable lack of respect for proper democratic procedure, so because of that I would still object. And I have just decided that I will send a formal objection to the DPL about this poll. My opinion is that the release team should have the right to that use of suite-ignore tags, and then get overriden by a GR on a case-by-case basis, when people feel the tags have ben misused. But if developers show they don't want for it to work that way, then it is for us to accept that and move on, period. That is a valid opinion, but IMO it is also completely unworkable. Would you really want (the possibility of) a GR for every single case where someone feels a tag is not used correctly? I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_ allow me to express my opinion. Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by sanctioning the RT. If you mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says RT should have the right for suite-ignore tags always, no matter what, that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that. See above. I really don't see how else the text for option 2 can be interpreted. It may not be the main purpose of the text, but IMO it is definitely implied. If you don't mean that, then I'm unsure what you mean and would like you to ellaborate. If you dislike the wording of the proposal, and would have liked something that didn't mention the RT at all, well... see above, I'm not perfect and you can't please anybody. (I circulated the draft in some of the channels I'm in, and nobody raised that concern.) Irrelevant and insufficient. IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been contaminated with
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]: * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]: How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the mail you replied to, section On ranking FD first in the official vote. Because any votes below FD do not count toward quorum/majority. Of course you can do all kinds of unofficial analysis on the outcome of the vote to correct for that, but that does not actually change the official outcome of the vote. You said, The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. From that, I take that you mean, if people rank FD first, option #1 will win. Then, or you haven't read the section that I mentioned, or you are ignoring it, or the wording of that section is not clear enough. Sadly, I don't have the energy to rephrase the whole section to make it clearer. If you can explain why voting FD/5/1 instead of 5/FD/1 is going to make option #1 win, clearly stating which parts of my explanations in the mentioned section you believe to be false, then we may get somewhere. I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now? You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go for a walk. Voting 11 does not reflect my position, I am raising my concerns and I feel this is too important to just take a walk. Fair enough. Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but it's impossible to please everybody. The reason why we have the option to propose amendments for official votes is exactly to make sure that everybody gets pleased, or at least that all opinions that have sufficient support within the project are reflected on the balot. That is why your poll is an even greater farce then the official vote. You can see where the ability to propose amendments, in combination with the current Secretary, has lead us to. But then, I didn't think there was time for a whole propose discuss period, since I prioritized getting as much voting time as possible for this unofficial vote. You may think this has converted the unofficial vote in a farce. I won't be able to convince you of the contrary, so let's agree to disagree. * * * (I'm now going to swap the order of two of your paragraphs, because I think it is better. Hope it doesn't cause any inconvenience.) I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_ allow me to express my opinion. Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by sanctioning the RT. If you mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says ^ that's a 2, of course RT should have the right for suite-ignore tags always, no matter what, that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that. See above. I really don't see how else the text for option 2 can be interpreted. It may not be the main purpose of the text, but IMO it is definitely implied. I strongly disagree that it is even remotely implied. The wording of the option talks about the lenny-ignore tags that the release team **has** aplied, not from what it may do in the future. However, you make a different and quite valid point with: If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use suite-ignore tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it: propose a GR, and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the Unofficial GR mail, too). No sorry, that is unacceptable. Your poll makes the same mistake the official vote does: it mixes separate issues into a single vote. And it is worse because it does not even allow to express preferences among those issues. The poll would have been a lot more acceptable if the second option had been worded simply to accept the same exception regarding DFSG violations for firmware that was made for Sarge and Etch. By adding in the issue of use of tags by the RT you _are_ effectively adding in a sanction of how the RT has handled this whole issue. I read these two paragraphs carefully, sat on them for a while, and I got what you mean: the poll does not give an option for people who were discontent, *not with the direction in which the tags were applied (leave firmware in Lenny), but with the tags being applied for these issues without consultation*. And you'll have to excuse this mistake, because since in my head the person who most complained about the use of the tags without consultation was Robert Millan, who *also* disagreed (apparently?) in the direction the tags were applied, I sort of associated the two in my head. In other words: yes, when writing the
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]: I believe developers, and particularly those holding key positions, should not ignore other developers even if their concerns don't come ^^ Er, should make an effort not to; I think the difference is important. in with a wrapping of sugar. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Love in your heart wasn't put there to stay. Love isn't love 'til you give it away. -- Oscar Hammerstein II -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Monday 15 December 2008 12:09:28 Frans Pop wrote: I also call on all Debian Developers to *not* vote in this poll. I must be missing something: is there some percieved harm in Debian Developers voting on an *unofficial poll*? -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]: Well, you'll have to understand that I'm not going to stop doing something which I don't believe to be wrong just because a fellow developer asks me to. I retract this paragraph. It was written in the first pass of the reply, before I my sat on reference happened (don't ask), and later on I didn't realize it no longer applied. Sorryp. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. -- Amos Bronson Alcott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 To: debian-proj...@lists.debian.org, debian-vote@lists.debian.org Date: 2008-12-15T20:59:50+ Adeodato Sim?? wrote: This is an unofficial vote, but at least it will be easy to vote in. If FD wins in the official one, and depending on the participation on both, it may also give us a good approximation about what the developers think with respect to releasing Lenny. I support the right or priviledge of a researcher to run a poll on the topic of their choosing. I further support the right or priviledge of a Debian Developer to run a poll on a topic associatied with Debian. I support this specific poll. Keep up the work. - -- John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ()(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklGxh8ACgkQrelPZQd5nnRyRQCfSk8lPFXWWCiXUL4/ZdnXGafE dKcAn03YZ99mgQO0wzoh4aKJkvANdwlf =FkYq -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: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org (15/12/2008): I support the right or priviledge of a researcher to run a poll on the topic of their choosing. I further support the right or priviledge of a Debian Developer to run a poll on a topic associatied with Debian. I support this specific poll. Keep up the work. Ditto; thanks dato! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: I got what you mean: the poll does not give an option for people who were discontent, *not with the direction in which the tags were applied (leave firmware in Lenny), but with the tags being applied for these issues without consultation*. For what it's worth, that was my original concern when I raised the issue on -devel: that a set of decisions, deemed important enough multiple times in the past to need a GR to pass a limited-duration override of the social contract, was this time being made without first seeking even a general discussion. Thank you for re-making this distinction, which does seem to have been partially lost in the intervening time. -- \ “Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's | _o__) hard to avoid second-hand smoke.” —Michael Tiemann | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:30:57PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Keep up the work.
Ditto; thanks dato!
... and while I'm still pondering whether to even blog about it or
not, this is a nice place where to stress that Dato even made the
right proposal way before the current messy vote was ready to be voted
upon [1].
Too bad that almost all of the now vocal people against the
multi-dimensional ballot were silent back then ...
Kudos to Dato for both the proposals.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00126.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:35:44PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: If more people do share your concerns, though, maybe abandoning the poll would be the right thing. If it's only you, I can't but offer all my explanations above, assert that they're true, and hope they can bring us somewhere. I believe you have good intentions, but agree with Frans that this poll only adds extra confusion to the issue. For that reason, I am not voting in it. Also, I don't understand the point of ranking FD above options you actually want in the official vote. Especially if you want an option which requires a 3:1 majority, it seems quite important to me that you vote it according to your preference. I'm not really complaining, I'm only voting options 5 and 1 above FD, so this boycott would help my preference. But I think it would be a bad idea to get things my way, if the developers don't actually want that. So I ask everyone to just vote how they want things to go. If you don't, the only result is that things happen that you don't want. If you really do think that FD is better than any of the options, please vote it highest. But if you don't, boycotting the vote seems like a very bad thing to do. One final thing: these two mails of you have brought a fair amount of stress on me, because of the way you say things. (Maybe you don't feel it's reasonable for me to feel stressed, but it's simply true that I was.) I have swallowed hard and replied calmly to them, because I believe developers, and particularly those holding key positions, should not ignore other developers, even if their concerns don't come in with a wrapping of sugar. (I don't want to ignore people in my Debian work, and if it ends up being impossible to deal with somebody, I'll clearly let them know.) However, the same way I've made an exercise and considered your views on actions of mine that I felt were right, I'm going to invite you make an exercise and consider what your style may bring onto other fellow developers (even if your points are right), because I know you've felt stressed with interactions with other developers yourself in the past, and it'd be bad to bring to others what you so much loathed. I'm impressed by the way you handle this. Thank you. Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
