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
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 me
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:54:53 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am not talking about _not_ having a soc-ctte. I am talking about
whether or not the selection criteria for ctte members needs to be
looked at with due consideration
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This might well be the case. But I can see where an informed
electorate can make a different decision for party selection if they
keep cultural diversity in mind. So the practical solution might be as
simple as adding a note to the charter of
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 to
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ li If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is
+created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength.
Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a
tried and proved method, no need for us
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:28:00PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a
tried and proved method, no need for us to start inventing new
methods.
Many of the tried and proved STV methods are faulty. (Perhaps not as faulty
as iterating
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ li If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners
is
+ created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength.
Why couldn't we just use some STV
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:17:27 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In other words, we share a common technical culture. This is not
the case for social culture of the community; and this distinction
would tend to make a difference,
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in
Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try [...]
That's a false dilemma. For example, I suggested letting email lists
(suffering most
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in
Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try - your comments about
the cultural diversion might be a helpful guideline here - but in my
opinion no argument against a soc-ctte.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:43:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It should be relatively straight forward for Devotee to find the
winner, take the winner out of contention the next round, find the next
winner (ignoring any pairwise contests dealing with any candidate no
longer in
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
...snip...
I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go
about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken
into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been
taken to address cultural diversity in the dispute
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure I agree that Debian as the melting pot is a viable
idea. And I find the concept of cultural hegemony (in other words,
Debian culture is dictated by the predominant subgroups, everyone else
better fall in line) mildly
Richard Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
...snip...
I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go
about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken
into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been
taken
Richard Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Are we planning on taking into account things like cultural
differences? Or is the decision going to be that the majority rule (or
the dominant culture) be the governing one?
I hope the committee will consider these
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:00:47AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:43:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It should be relatively straight forward for Devotee to find the
winner, take the winner out of contention the next round, find the next
winner
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In other words, we share a common technical culture. This is
not the case for social culture of the community; and this distinction
would tend to make a difference, in my opinion.
Well, we discussed it in private at DebConf (when I lost my
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in
Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try [...]
That's a false dilemma. For example, I suggested letting email lists
(suffering most badly ATM) promote their own admins in
Hi,
Firstly, wearing my secretary hat, I have no objections to
running votes for the soc-ctte membership, if we do decide such votes
are how things will be done.
Now, taking the hat off, and speaking bare headed, I have a
couple of comments to make.
The first set of
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:16:50 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
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
problem
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The first set of comments I have is related to efficacy, and,
perhaps, the notion of fairness. There is a fundamental difference
between a technical committee and a social committee: a technical issue
is likely to be
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:40 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The first set of comments I have is related to efficacy, and,
perhaps, the notion of fairness. There is a fundamental difference
between a technical
* 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
member of the soc-ctte
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
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 a
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.
snip
- by default, every 2 years the project has to reapprove individually each
member of the soc-ctte.
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 exposed to
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
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
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
[ on the Debian Condorcet method ]
It's targeted to finding the one winner, but it's easy to adapt to finding
a list: get the winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the
new winner, then remove it from the list of
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 notes a new posting because that's
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 desire (but it's certainly not expected
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
documented in an internal archive of soc-ctte, so
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
individuals
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 to
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
record
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
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
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
them -
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
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, 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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 posting bans. We should
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:02:53PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the difference between 'a list admin' and 'a small list admin
team' in this situation?
Nothing, really, I just believe in teams in volunteer work, because
then it's more likely that somebody in the team has the time and the
energy to do what's
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 ethnic
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 escalation
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 be kept
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 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
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, there is hopefully no problem to find a replacement. My point was
that we should explicitely name those positions who should not be a member
of the soc-ctte.
Okay.
Interestingly enough, we don't have similar provisions in the constitution
(§6.2)
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 clear
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 can
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 based
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 about this
56 matches
Mail list logo
