Felix Lechner writes:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
>> yes, I largely agree
> Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
> constitutional amendments should be based on sound prem
Hi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable
> yes, I largely agree
Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that
constitutional amendments should be based on sound premises.
As to the point bet
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 10:38:01AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Holger> all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it
> Holger> disrespectful to hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work.
> I'm frustrated reading this message because it sounds like you've jumped
> to the assumption that I'
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
> [...]
>> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only make things more
>> complex and make the issues at hand harder to understand.
Hi
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> rather than jumping to disrespect.
Please let's not fight fire with fire. I found Holger's comment quite
compassionate—at least compared to the comments he directed at me—and
would like to congratulate him.
He did not know that his facts
Felix Lechner writes:
> The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
> prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It is the opposite
> of what you wrote.
I think the detail that you may be missing is that under Wouter's system
for extending the discussion period,
Your proposal seems fine at first glance. I would prefer to see this
handled as a separate GR. If they don't conflict textually, you could
run them in parallel, but honestly I'd prefer to see them run in series.
A few more weeks of delay doesn't seem to be a problem for this topic.
--
Richard
Holger> all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it
Holger> disrespectful to hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work.
I'm frustrated reading this message because it sounds like you've jumped
to the assumption that I'm hijacking Russ's work without coordinating
with him.
I don't thi
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the propose
On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
> > now, or in a separate GR.
> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
[...]
> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:43 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Maybe you could
> try rephrasing in the hope that I may understand a different version of
> the question better?
The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project
prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It
On 2021-11-08 12 h 01, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> Russ made a final call for informal discussion.
> I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
> now, or in a separate GR.
I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR.
Although I welcome Russ' & al. efforts in
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-08 08:18]:
Probably the simplest fix would be to add something like this as a new
point A.0.3. Do people think it would be worth adding something like
this?
If a proposal (or ballot option; see section §A.1) requires some
number of sponsors N, only the first N Dev
Russ made a final call for informal discussion.
I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots
now, or in a separate GR.
The rationale for handling things now is that we can get it done with
and if a controversial GR comes up, we'll have the option of secret
ballots if
Sam Hartman writes:
> Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
> Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
> Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
> Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Woul
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> Hi,
Felix> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:45 PM Joerg Jaspert
wrote:
>>
>> I am pretty sure that was a 100% calculated move to go directly
>> to this.
Felix> It was impromptu. The mail was intentional only in the sense
Felix>
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Would it make
Charles> sense t
Charles Plessy writes:
> thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
> convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
> that I wonder:
> - (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
>adopting them? Maybe with som
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I have a few outstanding things I'd like to change to my proposal, but
> I'm currently on holiday until the 15th without access to my laptop. I
> had intended to post those updates before I left, as well as notify
> people that I'm off, but things got a bit busy just bef
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't understand the question. That system does not currently exist,
>> and therefore this could not have happened
> Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that deductive
> logic misses key insigh
Russ Allbery schreef op 7 november 2021 22:33:48 GMT+02:00:
>Hi all,
>
>I think the discussion has mostly died down on my draft GR. Wouter's
>alternative proposal has some support, but not the sort of overwhelming
>support that would lead me to believe I should drop my proposal in favor
>of his,
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I don't understand the question.
> That system does not currently exist, and therefore this could
> not have happened
Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that
deductive logic misses key insights. [1]
More broadly, y
Hi Russ,
thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
that I wonder:
- (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
adopting them? Maybe with some kind of role-playing ga
On 11/4/21 8:14 PM, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> The hardest part may very well be changing all the CNAME/A
> records[1][2]
Thanks for volunteering! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
24 matches
Mail list logo
