Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There was a clear need for a clarification. Why we had to vote on the
>> clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
>> implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me.
> Joerg J
On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Romain Beauxis writes:
> > For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision,
> > since the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen
> > while there was apprently no consensus for it.
>
> There was a clear n
Romain Beauxis writes:
> Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
>> FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
>> of those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a
>> waste of the GR process).
> Well, even if I would agree
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
> > There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
> > seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
> > important topics.
>
> FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for
Romain Beauxis writes:
> Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
>> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
>> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
>> were handled.
> I understand the furstration about them,
Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
> > This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> > generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> > were handled.
>
> But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
> secon
Subject: Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General
resolutions
Message-ID: <20090325060117.ga19...@powerlinux.fr>
References: <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
<2009035302.ga24...@yellowpig> <200903240112.34470.to...@rastageeks.org>
<200903250
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
> > I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
> > the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
> > for it.
>
> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, b
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
> thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
> ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
> recognized as an important viewpoint to take into cons
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
> Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> > Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> > process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> > to the poin
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
>
> You're aware that you can
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
> This theory does not match the project history in any way.
> vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
> level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
>
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 80
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
I agree. I fail
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum :
>> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
>> to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
>> is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
>> a high number of seconds might bar them f
On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
You're aware that you can propose amendments
Hi,
On Montag, 23. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> Then make an amendment that produces a lower requirement for seconding
> amendments?
sounds like an excellent idea to me, any takers? ;-)
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
> General resolutions are a m
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
> already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
>
It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.
Neil
--
hermanr_: I never studied german
I
Bill Allombert writes:
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general
> resolutions.
This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are
deprived. It does not discriminate and treats all DDs equally
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:53:02 +0100
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
Umm, so vote agains
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
> The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
>
Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.
Neil
--
< vorlon>
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts t
23 matches
Mail list logo
