On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:49:57PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/02/2018 01:14 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The Debian social contract doesn't go into that much detail, to explicitly
> > require keeping bugs open because they exist in practice -- but common sense
> >
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:39:34PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> We simply don't have the resources to manage the tasks you suggest
I'm saying one shouldn't send a message to n-close@bugs.d.o and instead
just keep an existing bug open. That change alone actually conserves
resources. Sending
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:41:39AM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > How does that make sense? If the option is called "do X", and fails to
> > do X in some opaque circumstances, how is that not a bug? At the very
> > very least, it needs to be explained somewhere. Last I checked, there
> > was not
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:59:23PM +, Andreas Tille wrote:
> www
> ---
> While Josip Rodin was very active on this list he failed
> in finding a new activist after he became quiet since 2003.
> Frank Lichtenheld and Matt Kraai tried to fullfill this role
> bu
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> this is to let you know that we in DSA have invited Martin
> Zobel-Helas to join us. Fortunately for us he accepted,
> so with a bit of luck we can now go back to doing nothing and
> let the rookie do all the work.
I can't believ
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:46:16AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> The Debian Prject clarifies that all privileged roles held on debian.org
> machines are to be considered delegations by the DPL according to the
> constitution, §
>
> as long as we trust ourselves not to elect DPLs going nuts
Hi,
This originates from the debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00142.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Josip Rodin said:
> > Ad hoc interventions are just that. We need to have a crack at solving the
> > underlying problem, and that means trying to stop depending on a myriad of
> &
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> It seems to me that after sam's emails this morning, this proposal is
> frankly unnecessary. Does your proposal bring anything that sam's
> emails didn't? It's clear that at least one DPL feels that the DPL is
> already empowered to
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > We acknowledge the previously existing ambiguity, and then continue on
> > a fully constitutionally defined procedure to decide things that resolve
> > any such ambiguity.
> >
> > What's your dilemma again? :)
>
> That it's not ful
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:40:43PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > There has also been
> > ambiguity on the constitutional position of infrastructure teams as such,
> > particularly those that predate it.
> [...]
>
> > Debian developers resolve the following:
>
> [...]
>
> As I read it, the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:41:43PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> One small typo fix. diff is attached.
Thanks. (And to Lucas.)
> And a question on the following text:
>
> * Each infrastructure team has to accept at least two valid candidates
> every two years.
> * Each infrastructure t
Hi,
This is take five - Stephen Gran sent me several suggestions for rewording
and stating things explicitly in private mail. I've spelled a few more
things out, and reordered some of the text so that it's clearer what's going
on. I've also moved some paragraphs from the acknowledgement section to
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:48:57AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:01:30 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:53:23AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > the Metropolitan Area Network Darmstadt (MAN-DA) will be working on
> &g
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:53:23AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> the Metropolitan Area Network Darmstadt (MAN-DA) will be working on
> their uplink fibers today, 2008-03-29 between 0630 and 1700Z. All
> our machines in their network will be unreachable for this time.
A whole day of downtime, an
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 07:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Josip Rodin 2008-03-22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I've been composing a proposal regarding how Debian's infrastructure teams
> > operate. It would be a good idea if the interested members of
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:33:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If you're going to make this a precondition before some power becomes
> operational, you need to more be clear about when it's met. I think
> you might be better off removing some of the motherhood and apple pie
> from this document to
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:40:47AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> - what are the major changes in the project and our product(s) since
> the etch release?
>
> - what else would you deem relevant to a "state of the project"
> summary?
Assuming you're going to be listing other incremental chan
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 07:37:39PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:50:37AM +0100, Josip Rodin a écrit :
> > When someone tells you "Debian policy sucks, my hack rules",
>
> It is exactly because neither in the bug report nor on this mailing list
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:45:03AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The point I want to make is that, unless the DM and the sponsor have
> been informed of their mistake and showed bad will, it is prematurate
> and demotivating to call their name for punishment on a pivotal mailing
> list.
Did you e
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:39:39AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > >I also learned tonight that a few of the things I was complaining
> > > about were being worked on (though I was not aware of it),
> >
> > T
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:11:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> No, it doesn't _compel_ the DPL to do anything. Because the DPL can
> always claim to have done such a verification. At best it encourages
> the DPL to act in a reasonable way.
>
> I agree that it is good to encourage the DPL to act
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:33:02PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > You didn't quote that clause fully. It says "if the team fails to make any
> > additions or removals as described above". The "as described above" part is
> > integral, it's not logical to disconnect it and make it optional, is it?
>
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 05:39:05PM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > Are there any other changes that have been agreed to by existing members to
> > address those issues, or will we now just have a larger team with
> > structural communication problems?
>
>This event has not cancelled anything e
ed basic access, but at the same time he didn't
introduce the mirroradm group to another host where we had no existing
permission.
In any event, if this means that he's got free hands[1] to do everything,
that's a good thing.
--
Josip Rodin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] *chuckle*
--
To UN
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:11:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm sorry to come into this at this late stage but I have a couple of
> questions.
Well, it might be late for the pace I'm hoping for, but really, it's only
been two weeks in discussion :)
> The first is: have you, as the person drivi
Hi,
Take four, just added the rule explicitly handling the case where DPL and
team disagree on which members are latent.
I'm hoping this is the final one before we go to vote.
-
This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * With regard to communication and documentation, infrastructure teams
> > should try to work under the guidelines laid out in
> > the Debian Developer's Reference.
>
> What about dropping this, and renaming the GR to "Project
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
wrote:
> If, for instance, we need to change people and we
> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or
> to interfere and ask for the change, then I think we need
> a better approach.
How exactly can
Hi,
Take three, minor copyedit, plus the rule explicitly handling all-latent
teams.
-
This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html
Proposed gener
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 04:30:42PM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >Judging by history, I don't think our current approach is exactly
> >flourishing. We've mentioned sysadmins, list admins, web admins, all of
> >those had breakages. We haven't mentioned bug admins, ftp admins, docs
> >admins, key
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something
> > else deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own
>
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:50:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think I've spotted another problem with the "second edit" - does it
> fail if all members of a team become idle simultaneously? Should
> there be a default of accepting a new member if the team doesn't
> decide?
I guess we should make th
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:47:08AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> >> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> >> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> >>
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:01:56AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
> > nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
>
> Why should team
Hi,
Take two.
-
This originates from this debian-project mailing list discussions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/10/msg00064.html
Proposed general resolution - Project infrastructure team procedures
Debian develop
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:32:31AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> manpower can
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 05:45:49AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Lucas writes about "that broken" team, you write about teams which "had
> breakages" and "had fairly major issues". If there are really 8 teams
> which were at one point "that broken", I suppose your proposition is
> interestin
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:00:08PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Sorry, but that won't work. The Constitution already empowers the DPL to do
> > things that nobody else is explicitly in charge of, yet none
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:53:26PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Well, let's put it this way - do you think that the hordes of people anxious
> > to see changes in the design of the web site think that we should keep the
> > webwml group as it is? :)
>
> Do you think that the reason why the web
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > I think teams should be free to coopt new members at any time as usual,
> > > but additionally there would be those nominations rounds so that
> > > candidates have an occasion to get a decision and a rationale (at least
> > > t
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:29:08PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Which teams do you currently have in mind? That applies to DSA,
> > > obviously, ftp-master, but also well-functionning teams such as the
> > > release team?
> > > But it could also apply to every team that has a unix group, even
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:13:38AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Good initiative. You might take some inspiration in the "Team guidelines"
> that I drafted earlier this year:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Guidelines
Okay, my proposal was aimed primarily at the process of composition, these
guid
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:34:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Once we have resolved something as he propose the DPL will be empowered
> to solve the problem with any team in the present and in the future.
Sorry, but that won't work. The Constitution already empowers the DPL to do
things th
[will check the wiki page, but I deleted the quote by mistake :)]
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:13:38AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams have to decide to mark old members who don't
> > sufficiently contribute to the team effort as latent.
> > * Latent team members count fo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:31:30AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * Infrastructure teams are groups of developers who deal with project
> > infrastructure and have access to resources in ways other than
> > the standard practice of uploading Debian packages.
>
> Which teams do you currently
Hi,
I pondered a bit about that old subthread about infrastructure teams the
other day... what follows is what I was intending to post to debian-vote.
But I'll post it to debian-project first, hoping that people improve it
before we get to the stage where everyone posts GPG-signed messages :)
---
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:27:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CHARTER OF THE SOCIAL COMMITTEE
Going back to this old thing... :) The bulk of the charter can be
promulgated by the developers through a GR, rather than just the leader,
so I'm looking at it from that aspect (and from the general asp
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:43:56AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> * We seemed to agree that a leader's delegation would be a useful tool to
> bootstrap the soc-ctte and modify it later
Well, that was so in June, but apparently everybody including the leader
forgot about this in the
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Technically the wiki is operated by debian-admin. For serious
> > > problems, please drop debian-admin a note. Patches in coordination
> > > with the python moin wiki maintainer are wel
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:41:52AM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> >> I do not believe the query on your URL should upset the process; [...]
> >
> > Why don't you believe it? The regexp it must match is
> > /^([\w.:\/~-]+)$/ - in other words, a string containing only one or
> > more word characters (al
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 08:13:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Thanks, but who is coordinating the wiki as a whole? Someone should
> > > take responsibility for dealing with questions/issues with the wiki in
> > > general, not only its technical side.
> >
> > I just stumbled upon this issu
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> This appears to have gone unfixed ever since wiki.d.o was first created,
> in October 2005 - almost two years now.
Hm, here are the user complaints about this:
http://bugs.debian.org/352115
"no feedback path
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 08:29, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Technically the wiki is operated by debian-admin. For serious
> > problems, please drop debian-admin a note. Patches in coordination
> > with the python moin wiki maintainer are
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election
> > suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't
> > it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)? Not a big
>
> It's targeted t
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:22:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > One thing that I hadn't had the chance to mention (because other people were
> > simply being louder than me ;) was that the "proactivity" still needs to be
> > documented in an internal archive of soc-ctte, so that there is a clear
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:32:15AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Straight elections were not considered to be a good appointment
> > strategy, at least for any subsequent years, because most of the work
> > done by the committee is in private.
>
> This is also something th
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:03:56PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Rationale
> -
>
> There wasn't a huge amount of discussion about this; mostly people
> seemed to acquiesce to the way I put it, which is that we need some
> method for dealing with disruptive behaviour that lies between
> indiv
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:48:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I feel we're really missing most sorely list-admin teams who will take
> care of the social fabric of one list each and are empowered to make
> limited short-term changes to preserve it, including updating the list
> info pages and small pos
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:44:28AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> even if I'm not perfectly decided whether it might be just practical
> because I doubt that there will be enough cronies in the group of
> volunteers.
Like with the cabal - it's not a matter of if they will be there, but
a matter of
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > * The communication of soc-ctte members with people about their
> > behaviour which might eventually become a matter of committee
> > deliberation should be kept reasonably private, to prevent
> > unnecessary escalat
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:15:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > * Someone proposed that the leader makes the initial list of members which
> > would then be voted upon, not sure; I would maintain my position that
> > people should be nominating themselves, rather than the leader naming
> >
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:42:52PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues
> > via mail. I just hope that many people will join
> >
> > https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html
> >
> >
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:07:54PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issues
> via mail. I just hope that many people will join
>
> https://penta.debconf.org/~joerg/events/93.en.html
>
> which I registered for an open discussion about this
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Josip models the SC's powers on those of the TC. This is wholly
>inappropriate because the questions that the SC is required to deal
>with are very different.
I guess it doesn't make sense to argue much about this, but I ha
Hi,
I went back and examined the thread that started with
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in February, and
came up with the following diff at the Constitution.
The changes from the last version include:
* replaced the somewhat confusing 'day-to-day' reference
* added section 'Intervene in communi
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Having a record of who voted for whom is a good default. Since we don't
> > > have any typical real-world election abuses in Debian (e.g. intimidation
> > > or harming of people who voted for s
Hi,
In a recent discussion on the -sparc list, it turned out that we seem to
have something of a habit of getting hardware offers, but not knowing
exactly what to do with them :)
The matter of shipping hardware and the associated cost always comes up.
I don't think we've footed the bill for shipp
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:05:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't quite get the idea of having a delegation where delegates are
> > voted upon. Imagine a conflict situation later - the leader can veto
> > their decisions, change charter, or even undelegate the whole thing.
>
> Yes. But in
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:12:12PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > * any candidate has to pledge a minimum 18 months availability to the team -
> > to avoid people nominating just for kicks, giving up after a few months,
> > and essentially wasting team effort spent for training them
>
> I
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Another thought. Sam's written about having more people in our core teams
> a few times, and no doubt will have more to say in the future; but a
> single person can only focus on helping one or two teams at any one time,
> and there's
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> NB that such a committee does not need to be consititutionally
> established. The DPL's existing powers are sufficient to establish
> it. A big advantage to not establishing the committee
> constitutionally is that we don't need to wo
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:06:30PM +0200, Torsten Trautwein wrote:
> to ask if it was possible to change the naming resource from Toy Story
> to The Simpsons?
Frankly, I think that both are fairly corny. If we are to change, we should
make a more meaningful change.
--
2. That which causes j
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:02:50PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I'm not sure money is the issue - it appears to be DSA set-up time.
> New hardware has been offered, many months ago, and is there, ready,
> online, but (so far as I can tell) it has not been brought into use by
> the people with the power t
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 11:08:44AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> We're telling people that they can/should use Debian, and 5 minutes later
> I have to explain [...]
I sense a bit of frustration in here :) but it's not really necessary.
I mean, you also have to explain people why we e.g. don't
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 02:08:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive
> upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's
> contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006:
>
> * creation of cdrkit, a fork of
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:53:52AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >IMO setting up an RT system will not fundamentally solve any of this, but
> >will at most make it more manageable. The only way to solve this is by
> >having new blood in the teams, people who will take on the most boring
> >and
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 01:09:12AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> So, basically my question remains: why does it have to be so incredibly
> difficult to allow new members into these teams?
Probably because fixing them requires spending a sufficient number of
man-hours and a substantial amount of will
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:30:53AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though
> > only
> > after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a plain
> > self-nomination. What do others think?
>
> What would be bett
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:39:11PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though
> only after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a
> plain self-nomination. What do others think?
You don't want Q, Q is too much, it's 15
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:03:59PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> See this list some time ago. Debian have a Sun T2000 available.
Oh yeah, I noticed, but it also sounds like we're not really using it.
That needs to be fixed. Besides, redundancy is good, esp. given that
vore is down.
--
2. Th
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:13:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think they contribute /better/ if they aren't closely supervised.
> I think that's seen some results over the past year, including much
> improved spam protection for debian.org addresses,
Er, we now have implemented measures that
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:25:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately "forgetting"? It has
> > > been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
> > > hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do
> > > not m
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:32:40AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > * have a 3- or 5-member leadership team, selected by the top-leader
> > but composed from the rest of the winning vote tally, where by "winning"
> > I mean those top 3 or top 5 who win over NOTA
> > * this selection must be base
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 08:34:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Now, conventional wisdom says that optimal teams (that's teams rather than
> > just groups) are composed of 5 or 7 people.
>
> I don't think we'll have any problem as there's no real limiting factor.
> When you handle very simple
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:00:36AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Composition:
>
> * Around 10 members representing if possible the various tendencies that
> exist within Debian.
One thing that needs to be clarified is the explanation of this number of
members. There are several ki
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:59:06PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > > Do you think it's likely for it to go on for more than one repetition?
> > > I've no real idea but it might lead to a dead end. And having
> > > infinite nominations/elections because there are e.g. "only" 10 and
> > > not 16
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:39:12PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > > + If there are fewer than S2 candidates
> > > > + at the end of the nomination period, then the nomination period is
> > > > + extended for two further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
> > > > + If "None Of The Above" wins t
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:14:27PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > You are aware that most of our elections are done this way,
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> > we only use hashes in the tally sheet for leader elections?
>
> Or in other words: I 100% of the votes regarding persons, we have a
> secret
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:17:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Having a record of who voted for whom is a good default. Since we don't
> > have any typical real-world election abuses in Debian (e.g. intimidation
> > or harming of people who voted for someone you don't like), I see no
> > seri
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:25:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> No matter what's my opinion on whether fresh blood is good or bad for
> the social ctte, I doubt it would make any difference to state a rule
> like that. The committee will be elected and I seriously doubt any
> "fresh blood" DD
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > > > + The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> > > > + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee elections
> > > > + are made public after the election is finished.
> > > And why shall votes
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:14:40AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > >> + The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> > >> + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee
> > >>elections
> > >> + are made public after the election is finished.
> > > And why shall vo
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:08:09PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > + If there are fewer than S2 candidates
> > + at the end of the nomination period, then the nomination period is
> > + extended for two further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
> [..]
> > + If "None Of The Above" wins the electi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:44:40PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> >>and I would think that social problems / discussions should be considered
> >>even more private.
> >
> >I disagree - if a problem is severe enough to get brought before soc-ctte,
> >it's out in the open already, and needs to be dealt wi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:22:41PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > In your suggestion the first three people to be elected would be a1,
> > a2 and a3, as they all beat all B candidates. In a representative
> > election a1, a2 and b1 should be elected, instead.
>
> Er, I do
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> One question related to the Concordet method: does it fullfill the
> representative criteria?
>
> AFAIUI the Concordet method allows this (please correct me if I'm
> wrong):
>
> We have two groups of people, A and B. A has 20 people
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:11:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The above power seems daft. soc-ctte deciding that farting loudly in
> DebConf dinner attendees' faces is a social norm would not make it so.
> This power needs omitting or rewriting to be much closer to the
> equivalent tech-ctte one, so i
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:38:12AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 03:32]:
>
> > + During the following month, any Developer may nominate
> > + themselves as a candidate member of the Social Committee.
> > + Every such
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:49:51AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > +The Social Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> > +social course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> > +this requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> OK, what happens if the Developer doesn't take t
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
