Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-25 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003 were handled. Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even though it is

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-25 Thread Romain Beauxis
Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit : I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation for it. This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-25 Thread Gunnar Wolf
, debian-vote@lists.debian.org Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:17 +0100 Subject: Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions Message-ID: 20090325060117.ga19...@powerlinux.fr References: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de 2009035302.ga24...@yellowpig 200903240112.34470

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-25 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit : I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion quality is obviously

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-25 Thread Russ Allbery
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes: Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit : This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003 were handled. I understand the furstration

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-24 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]: This theory does not match the project history in any way. vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient level of support to be valid to be called for vote: The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-24 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]: Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders? You're aware that you can

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-24 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]: Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit : Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed to the point

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-24 Thread Russ Allbery
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes: And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be recognized as an important viewpoint to

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-23 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said: Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders? You're aware that you can propose amendments

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-23 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said: Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-23 Thread Luca Niccoli
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net: Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them a high number of seconds

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-23 Thread Romain Beauxis
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit : Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process. I agree. I fail

[dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-22 Thread Bill Allombert
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-22 Thread Neil McGovern
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers. The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers. Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers. Neil -- vorlon We

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-22 Thread Ben Finney
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are deprived. It does not

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-22 Thread Neil McGovern
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called. It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so. Neil -- pixie hermanr_: I never studied german

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

2009-03-22 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. General resolutions are a much