On Tue Oct 05 15:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a very annoying workflow that makes things harder for voters.
Can't we stop doing this? I'd much rather see the ballot sent exactly
when the vote is open, so that people can simply reply to it immediately
and vote. I'm sure I'm not the only
requirements to the
others? What happens when the secretary and the proposer disagree about the
majority requirements?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu Mar 25 18:37, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
requirements to the others? What happens when
, but it never got anywhere
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to replacing the SC, DFSG and constitution but without
doing so because any other interpretation is absurd and makes the 3:1
pointless. I am completely aware that you and others disagree, and hence
the point of this vote so we can pick a position on it.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description
definitely aren't
something we need 3:1 for, regardless of what you think they are
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the
first place.
Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea.
Do you want to draft that?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of a grey
area here, hence the problems.
Please do suggest better terms.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
Absolutely
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
document at all, passing it by simple
majority is binding, whereas if it does conflict then it is not.
To put it another way, who decides whether to demand the author chose
between non-binding and 3:1, if they think it's not conflicting.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital
work against these rules and decisions
properly made under them.
This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
to do the work)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. These aren't in your list of things which are
binding GRs, but I think they should be something we can vote on and
they should be binding. Possibly this means the constitution is
deficient in this area.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again
it.
Votes in practice will be closer to the line, of course.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
probably best to discuss in that context
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
contains an ambiguous option will not be run until it is clarified
This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/05/msg3.html
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
supermajority, 4 does
not and that 5 and 6 should be rejected by the secretary as invalid.
I hope that has explained things better and you can see where I'm coming
from,
Matt
0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00091.html
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
have to vote to change
the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
that power under the
Constitution.
(sorry to hijack the thread) this is exactly what I want to clarify in
the other thread over - there about constitutional issues. And why
I was trying to get that in _first_
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
).
PROPOSAL END
I second this proposal
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
in a solution everyone has to
follow...
Issuing nebulous position statements is what we elect a DPL for, isn't
it (-;
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
again. To avoid
that discussion,
but noone followed up. I'm not about to propose running a vote to keep
them as they are...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
squeeze.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents
above.
Yeah, this is what I think too, but Manoj got a lot of flack about it,
hence why I want to make it explicit.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun Mar 08 23:40, MJ Ray wrote:
How about Shepherds Bush (Central line)?
How about accepting that he is the gender-neutral pronoun in English?
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to agree with you later.
If the DPL wants to release a statement to explain this all he is
welcome (and encouraged) to do so, I don't think we need a GR though.
This is one of the DPL's main functions and we did elect him to perform
that function...
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, through the wonders of condorcet. more than
half the voters were happy with that option (or it would not have beaten
FD)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of releasing Lenny
with DFSG violations (take that as you will).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
for people who don't have time to read that much, but do want to
have a bit more insight.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
done) seems nonsensical in the
extreme.
Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
clarify all this)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
prefer, if
the majority says that).
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
include SC/Constitution amendments to make
it below FD and make it clear that we
don't think this (or, alternatively, vote it in and then all the people
who thought we had a binding social contract can take a fork and work on
that)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
drivers in main and make them the default so that people can use compiz
but doesn't say they are overriding the DFSG or provide the wdiff for it
then that's fine and only needs 1:1 to pass?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes
otherwise we will
change the DFSG so that it is allowed The former is 1:1 and the latter
is 3:1. It may be a subtle difference, but it's an important one,
because it sets precedent for future issues where the difference is not
so subtle.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital
_really_ hope we can make 3:1 on this vote,
the project is in a sad state if we can't)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the project is
completely untenable. It's a ridiculous suggestion and I am shocked that
anyone would entertain the thought.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.
...
Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
I'm not too surprised by this. I think it's entirely logically
consistent to second something
and therefore requiring a super majority.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
then it is clear.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, without having to update stable, whereas the code shipped in
the kernel won't be free in Lenny, however long we wait (because the
solution is to remove/replace it)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
developers, asks
| the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes
| described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status.
Seconded
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, it would be good to recruit an
additional person to one of their posts, so that they can concentrate on
DPL duties). Things like TC, FTP masters, RM, Security etc probably want
rather larger minimums than two.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
been passed not being
adequately fulfilled)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
for an AM
contains Marco Amadori (advocated 1st March), Anthony Wong (11th march), Nigel
Croxton (21st March) and Magnus Holmgren (27th March). All of these people
have been waiting for over 4 months. I see no reason that the rest of the queue
would not also wait at least this long.
Matt
--
Matthew
, this might take some time
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
55 matches
Mail list logo
