Hi Lucas,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the
> current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to
> propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course
> fin
On 23/10/14 at 07:52 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> > to short
Dear Lucas,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> to shorten the discussion period.
I hope you consider the point raised
Le Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
> the discussion period to one week?
I am fine with shortening it.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/de
Lucas Nussbaum (2014-10-22):
> On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
> > would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
> > to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in t
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1
week"):
> I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> to shorten the discussion peri
Hi Lucas,
2014-10-22 17:22 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum :
> Charles, Luca, can you confirm that you are also fine with shortening
> the discussion period to one week?
Fine for me.
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 10:01 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But designing and tuning alternative proposals might take time, so I
> would prefer to wait a few days before reducing the discussion period,
> to ensure that we vote with a sensible ballot. I will decide in the
> middle of next week about th
2014-10-17 10:42 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum :
> Note that our voting method is clone-proof, so one proposal cannot steal
> votes from one another. That's one of the great things about Condorcet:
> you can have similar proposals on the same ballot without causing the
> votes to be split. Also numbers
On 17/10/14 at 10:28 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> 2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum :
> > So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
>
> I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
> many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could "win" wit
2014-10-17 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lucas Nussbaum :
> So, I think that we need alternative proposal(s), [...]
I agree with this point in principle, but we should avoid having too
many options, leading to scattered votes. One party could "win" with
less than 25% of the votes if the other ones are stealing
Hi,
On 17/10/14 at 08:38 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power
> under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week. I'd be
> surprised if anyone is likely to change their view on the desirability
> of choice of init system now - as oth
12 matches
Mail list logo
