On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote,
1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
2) Increase requirements to Q [3:1]
and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
wants to keep the current
Joerg Jaspert writes (Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for
General Resolutions):
On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
preamble that clearly explains what problem is being solved.
The goal is to change
Stephen Gran sg...@debian.org wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
it.
Previously, I
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop (07/01/2009):
Previously, I noted that fewer than 80 people participated in even the
hotly disputed lenny blobs GR discussion. That suggests to me that
lots of DDs aren't participating until the vote.
It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but
* MJ Ray [Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:04:50 +]:
It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
debian.org. I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a week.
o/` I am speechless, speechless
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote:
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop (07/01/2009):
It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is
simple: please could all DDs reading this email mjr-possiblegr at
debian.org. I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a
week.
Ron r...@debian.org wrote:
[...Wouter Verhelst's counts...]
Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
required. How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
evidence for your assertion that 30
Le Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:50:36AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.
I would also like options:
- to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone.
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just
to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential
options before they have any chance of building consensus and others
will be far too entrenched by the time
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Ron r...@debian.org wrote:
Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out? [...]
Yes, based on the
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:01:17PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
to reduce GRs, having
another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
Eh, -devel is for technical issues pertaining
Charles Plessy writes (Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for
General Resolutions):
The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a
preamble that clearly explains what problem is being solved. For the
moment I do not know if the problem is
This is a good way
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
it. The discussion
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said:
Basic math says that in the described two way vote, if an option wins
by 1.5Q, and the vote needs 3Q to be quorate, the number of people who
have voted for the option is 2.25Q, which is more than the proposal.
I don't think this is an argument
On 11622 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
The goal of this GR is still unclear to me, and I would welcome a preamble
that
clearly explains what problem is being solved.
The goal is to change the needed seconds for a GR.
For the moment I do not know if the problem is the multiplication of
MJ Ray wrote:
to reduce GRs, having
another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Hi :)
Neil McGovern wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
however. I'd suggest:
Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
references to K with Q.
b) 4.2.7 is reworded to state:
Ron r...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
popular DDs be able to
Michael Goetze mgoe...@mgoetze.net wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
to reduce GRs, having
another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.)
After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something
very similar to what I
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up. I feel that 2Q is possibly too large
however. I'd suggest:
Therefore the Debian project resolves that:
a) Section 4.2 of the Debian Constitution is amended, replacing all
On 05/01/09 at 23:37 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.)
After all the mails in the thread, I *think*
Hi all,
we could even go further and change towards a paradigm similar to Demexp
(demexp.org): permanent vote.
For non-anonymous votes it is very easy: when the number of seconders is more
than half of the number actively voting developers, the GR is accepted. We
could for instance define it as
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org writes:
So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
still willing to compromise and have opinions about
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:41:56PM +1030, Ron wrote:
It seems quite clear that recent (ab)uses of the GR process have had
little positive and immense negative affects on the project. And I
don't mean that in the sense that My Favourite Option May
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:47:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
proposing is a compromise that you hope everyone will be able to agree
upon.
I think that's a hugely important ability. I'm also worried that
setting the
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank Further Discussion
as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es [090101 23:36]:
No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
boat shared with friends, you
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank Further Discussion
as
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
Part of the problem is that we never have no, just no on our
ballots, so the only alternative is to vote further discussion,
even if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion,
and, as far as you're concerned, the matter is settled.
You
* Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es [090101 23:36]:
The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
second the wording as already
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
you want to see resolved. The statement I second this proposal
only
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
wider DD population,
If an option can't get seconds enough to
On 31/12/08 at 12:35 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
(...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
you don't plan on ranking first.
(or high, as others have said in this thread)
I am not sure about this... Sometimes
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
plan on ranking first.
This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
phrase and propose an option that one does
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
don't plan on ranking first.
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
because the people who do care about that option winning should get
to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
and concerns.
The people who do care about
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
because the people who do care about that option winning should
get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.
See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.
It seems like most people who responded preferred Q up to now. It might
end up as an amendment otherwise. :)
It would be also be good
Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
(...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
you don't plan on ranking first.
(or high, as others have said in this thread)
I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
rich enough set of
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
options exist. You should
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
The main reason I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this is that in practice
not all 1000 developers participate in a
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
It is 2Q as I do want a seperation to the one in b) (to stop a
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
have to be specified or there will be arguments).
floor() in this case. Well, my idea
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions against a shortening of
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
Or we have 2 vote options, one for 2Q, one for Q. What makes more sense?
Guess changing mine, to avoid confusion/too many options?! (All just
dreaming ahead to a possible vote :) )
I don't think having options for 2Q and Q for resolution sponsoring
makes
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
uncounted amounts of other people doing work for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions against a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
options exist. You
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
It is 2Q as I do want a
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
What are the consequences of setting the bar too high? Well, I
think it would favour organised campaign groups, it encourages
clustering around flags too early rather than seeking compromises
This is a very compelling argument, and it convinced me that I
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,
Current Developer Count = 1021
Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9765453086705
Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.9296359260114
this will mean that future GRs would need
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
This is what I disagree with for all the reasons that I
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the rounding/truncation which would
have to be specified or there will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
Actually, 31 (depending on where you do the
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: [...]
Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
found only the following ones:
I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
Proposal F chosen -
[Stephen Gran]
That just means that the number of people who think the vote is even
worth having is not that different to the number of votes required to
make it valid. That's probably not all that bad a thing, IMHO.
If that is sound reasoning, then it is also a reason to have a higher
* Wouter Verhelst [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:21:58 +0100]:
I'm still undecided whether I'm for Q, 2Q, or what. But:
Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
found only the following ones:
I
On Tue Dec 30 09:31, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
This is what
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-
Proposal F chosen - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
Eh, that's incorrect.
Eh, that's unhelpful. I found both the email's terms and some of
the more recent
Dear all,
since it is rare that a GR is rejected by a majority of persons ranking
Further discussion above all, I do not think that there is a need to make it
more difficult to propose a GR. Nevertheless, in light of the painful firmware
GR this year, I think that the following ideas can help to
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
in light of the painful firmware GR this year, I think that the
following ideas can help to avoid such a situation to happen again.
- Restrict the use of 3:1 supermajority to GRs proposing changes of
our fundation documents.
This restriction would
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
for the quorum (2Q vs 3Q). I think that is too much. I think
This one time, at band camp, Kalle Kivimaa said:
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes:
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
This would mean that you need almost as many sponsors as is required
for the
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Therefore the Debian project resolves that
a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
as well as resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
options exist.
Absolutely agreed with this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:54:41 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
plan on ranking first.
This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
phrase and propose an option that one does *not*
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
plan on ranking first.
This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the
vote's result.
If no one is going to rank those options
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an option
one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option no-one
wants on the ballot”.
I'm not sure that I find it usefully different, unless what you're
proposing is a
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully
phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of
the vote's result.
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Sure, I'm all for clarity and precision. I just don't see a reason
to put the ones that no one wants to champion on the final ballot.
Nor do I. You still seem to be making an unnecessary connection
between “the option isn't well supported enough to be on
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it
85 matches
Mail list logo
