On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So it boils down to this: are the issue orthogonal, or are they
> just different solutions to the same issue? I have presented my
> argument for why I think they are the same; can you explain why those
> arguments do not hold, and these are
On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May
wrote:
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If we do all this, we would be voting:
> >
> > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> > issues or what h
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
>> voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
>> to the results being gamed.
>
> This is an hypothetical cas
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, thanks for not flaming here; it was pleasantly surprising
to see civil discussion on this topic.
> Where there's ambiguity about whether a proposer intended an amendment vs. a
> stand-alone proposal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to al
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:45:54 -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> > vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> > the vote, but that w
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:45:51AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> A serious license problem could potentially be every bit as disruptive and
> expensive to our users as a technical problem. I think this factor is
> really what the discussion is about and why release continues to be a
> sticking po
Le Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:15:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> So, while the power set of the options is not feasible, we could
> have a slew of options combining the various proposed options, if
> people wanted to vote on a compatible set of options.
Hi Manoj,
I am affraid I
All of these issues should have been resolved in the discussion
period. Sadly, they were not. Is there any constitutional way
to do it over and resolve the issues at the appropriate time?
For example, could the secretary cancel the vote if either (a)
the GR alone, or (b) the GR and all amendment
Margarita Manterola wrote:
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to allo
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> I am not sure how even choice 1 is over riding that decision. Do
>> you believe that the release team, despite their protestations, is
>> bundling DFSG violatons into main? If the release team is releasing
>> only
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 04:58:26PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why is having an omnibus vote now, and a vote on option #4 and
> option #6 in January any worse than arbitarily splitting votes? (We
> could stipulate that actions on the january votes apply only after
> lenny releases,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
> voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
> to the results being gamed.
This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the
issues ar
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled
> > in contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires
> > that new ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an
> > outstanding
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> And other people are not comfortable with you claiming a power that is
> not grounded in the constitution: namely, the power to declare that a
> ballot option needs supermajority, even if it is not a motion to
> directly amend or supersede a foundation
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I am not sure how even choice 1 is over riding that decision. Do
> you believe that the release team, despite their protestations, is
> bundling DFSG violatons into main? If the release team is releasing
> only free stuff, then option 1 is being followed.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I do not
> think the secretary
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> Basically, to declare this option as requiring a 3:1 majority assumes
>>> an answer to precisely the question that's being disputed, and I don't
>>> think that falls under the pur
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:12:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>> I would think the explicit overriding or removal of parts of foundation
>> documents aka changing them as I read it in the constitution (but
>> apparently my interpretation differs from yo
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>>> If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
>>> Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
>>> that an option conflicts with a found
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> > Thomas Weber writes:
>> >> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>> >
>> >>> I've been talking with Manoj a
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The proposal we used before is choice 5 in the current
>> ballot, and that does indeed have a 1:1 majority like we did
>> before. The devil lies in the details (and I have explained the details
>> before too) -- which i
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I also
>> think that placing all related proposals on a single ballot is
>> relevant, it prevents an easy exploit of the voting system by sim
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Basically, to declare this option as requiring a 3:1 majority assumes
>> an answer to precisely the question that's being disputed, and I don't
>> think that falls under the purview of the secretary. The secretary
>> interpre
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> Have we not been discussing this for weeks now? Related options
>> belong on the same ballot. Not doing so allows for strategic voting to
>> game the issue. This is not really an opinion piece, this is a known
>>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>
>>>This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
>>>you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
>>>requ
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:54:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Thomas Weber writes:
> >> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> >
> >>> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
> >>> flaming. I
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any ju
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The way that we achive such combinations using condorcet is to
>> propose such combinations as options intheir own right; and then have
>> people vote on the combination option along with simple op
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
Seems liek t
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I also
> think that placing all related proposals on a single ballot is
> relevant, it prevents an easy exploit of the voting system by simply
> setting up a series of votes that can b
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
>>> process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
>>> have made this whole conflict easier to resolv
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> * Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant
>> number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were
>> grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly. There
>> wa
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
>> process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
>> have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can
>> tell,
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
> process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
> think some additional clarity around that would have been very helpful.
Not really. I think that the
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
>> when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
>> changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
>>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
>>> you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
>>> requir
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Bas Wijnen writes:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
>>> Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in preparin
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>>> Seems liek there was plenty of time to change things, and add
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>>This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
>>you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
>>requiring a developer statement about
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> I think he had the implied accussation from the GR's text in mind.
> Option 1 is to 'Reaffirm the Social Contract', which means that dissenting
> votes weaken and/or break the SC. No idea if that is on purpose or a
> honest mistake, but I am assuming
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> It's a shame that the vote was handled in the way that it was,
>
>> Actually, I think the secretary has done a very good job in preparing
>> the ballot.
>
> I would
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The way that we achive such combinations using condorcet is to
> propose such combinations as options intheir own right; and then have
> people vote on the combination option along with simple options.
Or do separate votes...
> Th
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>>> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
>>> different things, is complet
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
>
> This ballot is nonsense:
>a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
> lenny to release with DFSG violations AND "proprietary" firmware
> AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
The
On Mon, Dec 15 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Weber writes:
>> Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre:
>
>>> I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid
>>> flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous
>>> problems with i
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
>> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
>>
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> --
>> Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
>> == == = = == ==
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments,
>> > then he is behaving in a wholly improper
Hi,
This whole set of discussions and proposals started a couple of
months ago, when concerns were raised about firmware blobs, dfsg
violations, and the release. This, after a round of disuccion, led to
three proposals on how the release should be conducted, in view of
firmware blobs c
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> > from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq> >4. We
>> > give priority to the timely release of Et
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
>> For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
>> perfectly correct.
>
> Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
> deciding
* Ean Schuessler (e...@brainfood.com) [081217 14:53]:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
>
> > With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
> > non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
> > a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers t
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
> non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
> a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your
> *interpretation* of the foundation documents tha
WESTFLOOR
Stirbei Voda 53-55, 010103 Bucuresti; TEL 021 3182125; FAX 021 3111456;
Mobil: 0740.001.101
PARDOSELI PVC FORBO TARKETT
Oferta covor pvc SafeS
Pardoseala trafic intens, antibicrobiana si antiaderapanta
Pret covor pvc SafeS8.7 euro/mp + tva
Domenii d
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently
> >> with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution
> >> for requ
55 matches
Mail list logo
