Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/10/2007):
> I also did not forgot, but wanted to revisit the video of the BOF
> which to my knowledge was not yet published (perhaps we should ask the
> video team for the location of the recording stream?)
Are you referring to [1]? If so [2] looks like it to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, that was so in June, but apparently everybody including the leader
forgot about this in the last three months.
Wrong. You did not forgot. I also did not forgot, but wanted to revisit
the video of the BOF which to my knowledge was not yet published
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 last three m
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 Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03:09AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:32:15AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
While I certainly appreciate Andreas organizing the talk in the first place,
because if he hadn't, it wouldn't have even gotten into the schedule early
enough for people to generally notice it :) it does seem that we would have
been better off having someo
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070627 23:31]:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social
> committee proposal]"):
> > AFAIR, the consensus was that:
> > - by default, every 2 years the project has to reapprove individually each
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 that I didn't get a chance
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
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social
committee proposal]"):
> 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
> docume
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social
committee proposal]"):
> Basicaly, any communication concerning the "proactive" part shall be
> private. The person receiving the warning can publicize it by themselves
> if they so d
Josip Rodin writes ("soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee
proposal]"):
> Ian said he'll send over his notes, but I'm impatient so I'll have a go :)
Right, thanks :-). My recollection and notes broadly agree with you.
I'll write from my n
El martes, 26 de junio de 2007 a las 23:16:50 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli
escribía:
> 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
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:48:51AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I feel we're really missing most sorely list-admin teams [...]
>
> The problem with that is that nobody is proposing any sort of a model
> by which these teams would be composed.
Naive proposal for
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:50:37PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 June 2007 15:33, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > After a decision is made I think it's less problematic to make the
> > discussion available to all DDs. But still there is the problem, that
> > offending behaviour would be expos
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> We have decided to have 2 GR at the same time. One deciding the creation
> of the soc-ctte and one deciding its membership.
> - by default, every 2 years the project has to reapprove individually each
> member of the soc-ctte. Th
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On the other hand, a single social committee provides for a body which will
> be by and large neutral towards all lists (it will apply the same reasoning
> towards all).
... if the committee isn't too big. I don't expect "early warnings" to be
approved by
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 15:33, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> After a decision is made I think it's less problematic to make the
> discussion available to all DDs. But still there is the problem, that
> offending behaviour would be exposed to all DDs.
The committee's deliberations should be solely base
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I think that the internal discussions should be kept private to the
> soc-ctte at least as long as no decision is made. As decisions made
> by the comitee will probably quite often involve social behaviour of
> DDs I think it's problematic if all DDs c
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:19:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > The biggest decisions need to be publicly documented however. I don't
> > think we've clearly drawn the line here. I'm also unsure if it's important
> > to have a c
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 05:19:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>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 b
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
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
> > If it's all voting-derived, how can we assure there will be any
> > debian-minority views represented on soc-ctte at any time?
>
> What exact minority do you have in mind?
No particular one, but including: racial or
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
If it's all voting-derived, how can we assure there will be any
debian-minority views represented on soc-ctte at any time?
What exact minority do you have in mind?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I was happy to note that there wasn't really any discussion as to whether
> there should be such a thing - the implicit consensus was that we do need
> something, it's just that we need to figure out exactly what and how.
Something is needed, but I'm
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
I have an issue with the leader deciding on the composition of the
committee, in general. I think it could easily create the impression
that they are his cronies, and we have to avoid that.
You are right here - I just wanted to enhance the suggestion abo
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
> >
Hi,
(you could have started a new thread :-))
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
> * The initial social committee will have to combine two aspects - one is
> the need to have a body that would judge on disputes (this would be the
> committee as such), and the other is the need to h
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
Ian said he'll send over his notes, but I'm impatient so I'll have a go :)
Thanks for your impatience. :)
The issues that were touched included:
I found quite similar things in my private log - hoping to review the
recording later to sort out missing
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
> >
> > which I registered for an open discussion a
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:11:42 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> every years for a two years time (and doing the elections at the same
>> time as the DPL)?
> I think only voting in he same ballot will find wide acceptance
> amongst
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 Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
Eh, why don't do it in the discussion about Debian governance?
You know the principle: we need Gnome AND KDE, Emacs AND Vim, ... ;-)
Or rather: It was kind of hard to find out which events were
submitted when there was time for submissions. So well, I
* Andreas Tille ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070608 13:08]:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> >I don't get the problem. We have two sets of people there in:
> >- people elected in even years
> >- people elected in uneven years
>
> Well, I don't think it is the best idea to discuss those issu
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't get the problem. We have two sets of people there in:
- people elected in even years
- people elected in uneven years
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://
* Andreas Tille ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070608 09:12]:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> >I think it would be better if the committee is re-elected from the
> >developers at large - perhaps half of their size
>
> I see no chance to define half of their size precisely. It immediately
>
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
I think it would be better if the committee is re-elected from the
developers at large - perhaps half of their size
I see no chance to define half of their size precisely. It immediately
opens a lot of question. One of these questions is "Which half?"
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070601 11:59]:
> 7. The initial Social Committee will consist of of five elected
> Developers. The Project Secretary is requested to organise and
> hold an election, in a manner similar to that for Project Leader.
>
> 8. The Committee shall be responsi
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So let me make a concrete proposal for a DPL delegation which I hope
> will be adapted and adopted by Sam.
As a general comment I like the idea of having such a committee and
welcome your proposal.
To the details ...
> (5) Decide
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see little to support the notion of a) preemptive action b) private
> interventions being something the community would instantly start preferring.
Maybe it should. In social disagreements the fastest way to resolve
problems is if the problem is privatel
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
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
If the developers elected the five, how could they be fired without a
big shift of opinion?
I'm personally more concerned how to find these five people in the
first place before I think about how I could get rid of them.
Perhaps I'm to naive
Andrea
Josip Rodin writes ("Social Committee proposal text (diff), updated"):
> [stuff]
Josip's proposal is radically different from mine in two orthogonal
ways. The first one, which we have been arguing about a bit so far,
is that he proposes that we establish the SC as a constitutio
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I feel that this would probably entrench any majority views,
> > particularly with only five members. Replace with:
> >
> > 7. The initial Social Committee will consist of eleven Developers
> > drawn by random selecti
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray writes ("Re: Social committee proposal"):
> > I feel that this would probably entrench any majority views,
> > particularly with only five members. Replace with:
>
> Do you mean entrench the views about reasonabl
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 someone you don't like), I see no
> > >
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 Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I still think that we should organize a proper GR to put a basic framework
> into the constitution, and then vote on the members regularly.
I agree. I always wonder why the project, like any other association of
individuals instead,
Josip Rodin writes ("Re: Social committee proposal"):
> 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.
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Social committee proposal"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > 7. The initial Social Committee will consist of of five elected
> > Developers. The Project Secretary is requested to organise and
> > hold an elec
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:56:32PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Also, I can already see opposition to a committee which is only elected
> > once, and can then change its own membership at will, while retaining
> > all of its the powers
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
I feel that this would probably entrench any majority views,
particularly with only five members. Replace with:
7. The initial Social Committee will consist of eleven Developers
drawn by random selection from all Developers.
Are there any statistics from whi
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> There is no requirement for the Social Committee to publish
> requests made to it, its decisions or requests, or its
> deliberations except that access control decisions it makes
> under (4) above shall be public.
I don't think
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:24PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Also, I can already see opposition to a committee which is only elected
> once, and can then change its own membership at will, while retaining
> all of its the powers that the originally elected members were given.
> That simply sound
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
Recent events have shown us again that we need an advisory and
disciplinary process short of expulsion. I think a social committee
is roughly the right answer.
NB that such a committee does not need to be consititutionally
established. The DPL's existing powers are sufficient to establish
it. A
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:59:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "I don't like this person, but I have to work with him in this project,
> > so I would like to hide that fact from him/her. I don't want to rank
> > him/her above NOTA, but I also don't want to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:52:12 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > (Just a note - my S2 boundary isn't really arbitrary, it's basically a
> > > function of the quorum.)
> > (Point taken but it's still a deliberate decision to say
> > count($members_of_soc_ctte)=round(Q).)
> (I was just correcting the ad
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
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070213 17:18]:
> "I don't like this person, but I have to work with him in this project,
> so I would like to hide that fact from him/her. I don't want to rank
> him/her above NOTA, but I also don't want to have to explain that"
that problem can easily be av
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I don't like this person, but I have to work with him in this project,
> so I would like to hide that fact from him/her. I don't want to rank
> him/her above NOTA, but I also don't want to have to explain that"
So, what can one conclude about debian fr
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:46:10 +0100, Josip Rodin 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 persons seems to
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, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > 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 vote.
Not quite 100%. A DPL recall vote is about a person.
Cheers,
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Hi!
Sorry, forgot to mention one thing:
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 11:54]:
> 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 hav
Hi!
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 11:54]:
> I don't think I want anyone who fears the idea of public disagreement to
> sit two years in a committee that arbitrates social conflicts. [..]
Neither do I. That's why I want it to be possible to not vote for such a
candidate without him k
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:42:50 +0100, Josip Rodin 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 election, or i
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:54:04AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I don't think I want anyone who fears the idea of public disagreement to
> sit two years in a committee that arbitrates social conflicts.
That's turning the problem upside-down. It's not about avoiding fears
for people who are running
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:07:34PM +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 someone you don't like), I see no serious
> negative
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
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> A social committee needs demosntrated judgement. People new,
> and inexperienced in the ways of Debian, might not really be better
> fit. [...]
Is soc-ctte about preserving the current/recent-past majority view, or
correcting the major
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:38:12AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > + At least one third of all elected candidates should have been
> > + members of the project for at least Y/2 years, where Y is the age
> > + of the Project in years. If fewer than one third of candidates meet
> > + this req
Hi!
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 12:17]:
> > > + 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 become public? Wha
Hi!
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 04:28]:
> >> + 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 become publi
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:38:12 +0100, Alexander Schmehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi!
> * Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 03:32]:
>> + The next two weeks are the polling period during which
>> + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee
>>elections
>> + are made pu
"Josip Rodin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:38:12AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl 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
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:32:52 +0100, Josip Rodin 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 election, or if fewer tha
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 don't think I modified the el
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
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Think of scale - right now we need 16 people to 'win' the election, and
> the seats last twice as long as the leadership seat. It made sense to me -
> please say if it doesn't to you.
One question related to the Concordet method: does it fullfill the
repre
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 nomination must be seconded by o
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman;
>
> + The Social Committee and/or its Chairman;
[+ many similar additions]
Alternatively, just s/The Technical Committee/A constitution-defined
committee/ where applicable. I think adding soc-ctte analogue
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
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 1) When do developers need to implement social stances or policies?
> Can you give an example of the kinds of things the constitution
> may be talking about here?
While copying and pasting :) I was actually puzzled at the
Hi!
* 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 nomination must be seconded by one other developer.
Any specific reason for having a full month as nomi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:49:51AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > +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, wh
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +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 the required course of
action? Wit
On ma, 2007-02-12 at 03:32 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> + At least one third of all elected candidates should have been
> + members of the project for at least Y/2 years, where Y is the age
> + of the Project in years. If fewer than one third of candidates meet
> + this requirement, the election
Hi,
I have a few questions about this proposal.
1) When do developers need to implement social stances or policies?
Can you give an example of the kinds of things the constitution
may be talking about here?
2) What happens if only some of the paticipants in a social, umm,
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
