Ron wrote:
[...Wouter Verhelst's counts...]
> Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
> can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
> required. How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
> evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a "v
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds
> > for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until
> > some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out? [...]
>
> Yes, based on the summary
Michael Goetze wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > to reduce GRs, having
> > another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> > answered might help.
>
> Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work
better for
MJ Ray wrote:
> to reduce GRs, having
> another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets
> answered might help.
Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Ron wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being
> > discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs.
> > Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those
> > popular DDs be able to propose
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Because not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong)
> opinions on which are more and which are less desirable is still a
> valid position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.
It's fine to rank options you prefer further discussion to, becau
Chris Waters writes:
> So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
> further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
> magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
> still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
> o
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> > I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> > can't accept compromise.
> I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
> to mean.
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the op
Chris Waters writes:
> And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
> afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an
> option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just
> stupid.
Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's suggestion was a
*
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> Part of the problem is that we never have "no, just no" on our
> ballots, so the only alternative is to vote "further discussion",
> even if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion,
> and, as far as you're concerned, the matter is settled
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
>
> Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussio
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adeodato Simó [090101 23:36]:
> > No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
> > resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
> > boat shared with friends, you should act res
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be wil
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't
> > have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't
> > want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't
> > be wasted wit
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> > ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> > conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> > wider DD population,
>
> If an
On 31/12/08 at 12:35 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> > (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
>
> (or high, as others have said in this thread)
>
> I am not sure about this... Som
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the
> ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
> conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the
> wider DD population,
If an option can't get seconds enough to
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> > only means "I
* Adeodato Simó [090101 23:36]:
> > The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
> > much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
> > They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
> > second the wording as already proposed, or a
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> > and be more vigilant about withdrawing op
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
>
> > > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > > because the people who do care about that option winning should
> > > get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete
> > > opinion an
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]:
> > You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> > because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> > to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> > and concerns.
> The people who do car
Adeodato Simó writes:
> * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
>
> > Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
> > > don't plan on ranking first.
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
don't plan on ranking ab
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> > plan on ranking first.
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. You shou
Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> you don't plan on ranking first.
(or high, as others have said in this thread)
I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
rich enough set of op
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> plan on ranking first.
I've thought a bit about it, and I think that there would be no
unpleasant side-effects; so I agree with it.
The case I considered is a recen
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Guido Trotter wrote:
> Well, let's say you should not propose or second an option you don't
> plan to rank above "further discussion".
I agree. "Rank first" is a bit absolutist; "Rank highly" is more
appropriate, and what I used in later mails in this thread.
Don Armstrong
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist. Yo
[switching to -vote only, since this is about the process of voting]
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> order to get it voted on?
Because it can potentially
Don Armstrong writes:
> 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> options exist.
Absolutely agreed with this sentiment.
> You
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> as well as resolut
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC
discussions told
35 matches
Mail list logo