Hi,
Peter Samuelson:
Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR should
be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that it can beat
another option if only a few people rank it higher? I am not in favor
of that.
You can't give any one option more weight in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/11/14 11:52, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Peter Samuelson:
Do you mean, perhaps, that the Further Discussion option in a GR
should be weighted much more heavily than other options, so that
it can beat another option if only a few
[Daniel Pocock]
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this
be better than people leaving outright?
That sounds like a pretty good description of either a GR, or the
Technical Committee. We have both
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
Hi,
Stephen Gran:
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Pocock said:
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions?
I veto this idea.
I agree.
If you want to block a change, convince the rest of us that it's a bad
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
cheers,
Holger, who might have forgotten to indicate sarcasm...
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to
upload something before checking it is 100% free?
That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a
mandate to do exactly that.
The veto we're talking about here is more along the
On 13/11/14 15:25, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Daniel Pocock:
If veto is dead, what would the FTP masters do when somebody decides to
upload something before checking it is 100% free?
That's a different sort of veto. That's what they do, and they've got a
mandate to do exactly that.
and
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created
On 11/13/2014 05:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 13/11/14 13:16, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I veto this idea.
I agree.
I don't. I veto the idea that this idea is dead, I think we should discuss it
some more.
If veto is dead, what
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:04:05 +0100
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto
* Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro, 2014-11-12, 11:04:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a
On 12/11/14 10:04, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in
project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
Cheers,
zlatan
On 12 November 2014 11:04:05 CET, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote:
It
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from complexity and force people back
Hi Daniel,
aint the GR process exactly that, a way to say veto? Compare the current
vote...
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from
On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people
On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes:
On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/11/14 18:36, Philip Hands wrote:
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro writes:
On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 06:44:50PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
You're expecting people proposing GRs to be receptive to rational
argument.
I fear you've not been paying close attention recently. Well
done. I congratulate you on your wisdom.
If rational argument is not necessary, then
On 11/12/2014 02:04 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:20:01 +0100, zlatan wrote:
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity in
project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
When you have a small number of people involved in a 'community' then you
can get by with little
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
option for them is to resign.
Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions? Would this be
better than
* Daniel Pocock (dan...@pocock.pro) [141112 13:42]:
On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
Please no.
We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
If a veto facility is created effectively, then
Andrey Rahmatullin w...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
If a veto facility is created effectively, then it will deter people
from complexity and force people back to looking for consensus
Or we could fix the TC instead.
It would be lovely if
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:08:23PM +0100]:
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
suggestions
However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential
package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto. The
implication
On 13/11/14 06:29, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:08:23PM +0100]:
I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
suggestions
However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential
package and anybody who is a DPL delegate
32 matches
Mail list logo
