Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Have we not been discussing this for weeks now? Related options
>> belong on the same ballot. Not doing so allows for strategic voting to
>> game the issue. This is not really an opinion piece, this is a known
>> flaw of splitting votes where condorcet is used.
> Yes, you've said this, and I understand your point and I understand that
> you feel this is very important, but clearly a lot of people don't agree
> with you and are willing to live with potential strategic voting in favor
> of having separate ballots. I don't think your concerns, while valid,
> were a good justification for turning something into an amendment that
> wasn't proposed as one.
> I see why you made the decision. I just don't think it's a good one.
> (But it's someplace where I can see where reasonable people can disagree.)
I am sorry that you do not agree, but I am failing to see the
rationale for preferring a route that allows our votes to be gamed (and
thus, arguably, tainting the process _anyway_) to an omnibus vote.
And there is no reason we can't still have multiple votes; just
because a proposal does not win this round is no reason it can't
be brought up again.
> The 3:1 majority here is what has to do with the secretary. Given that
> this option is functionally the same as FD, and FD doesn't require a 3:1
> majority, I think this is rather odd. But this was discussed in more
> depth in another message.
I do not think that FD means release lenny, I think FD means
delay until we are sure we meet the DFSG. But again, what I think of
the FD does not carry weight; but it does explain why I do not think
the FD needed a 3:1 majority.
> Basically, to declare this option as requiring a 3:1 majority assumes
> an answer to precisely the question that's being disputed, and I don't
> think that falls under the purview of the secretary. The secretary
> interprets the constitution, but not the DFSG or the SC. It's one of
> those difficult balancing acts: you do have to decide whether to
> require a 3:1 majority, which partly requires interpretation, but
> interpretation may be the matter under dispute. In this particular
So who interprets the DFSG and the SC in regular day to day
activities? Do we not interpret it as best? Isn't your argument that
the release team should be interpreting the DFSG and SC in their work?
If the release team is not allowed to interpret the DFSG and SC in
order to release who is?
> case, I think the best approach would be to take the word of the
> amendment proposers on whether they intend to supersede a foundation
> document or whether they are only proposing a non-binding resolution
> on the sense of the project (or possibly a delegate decision override
> that doesn't change the foundation document).
Well, if the proposers wanted a non-binding resolution, why is
that not clear in the proposal itself? If it had been explicitly stated
that this is not what the developers decided by the means of a general
resolution as a course of actrion, but just as a non-binding
resolution, then there might have been some justification to let it
stand alone (though I would have refused to run that vote, since I do
not feel comforable aiding and abetting creation of a position
statement that contradicts, in my view, a foundation document. However,
I would let the asst. secretary run that wvote, if they were amenable).
But lacking an explicit statement that it is a non-binding
resolution and should be treated like one, I must treat is as something
the project resolves to do via a general resolution, whether or not the
foundation documents are against that.
> Also, after this message, I'm going to stop discussing what I think we
> could have done with this ballot, since at this point it's rather late to
> change it and I don't think withdrawing it and reissuing it would really
> accomplish anything that useful. So this becomes rehashing of decisions
> already made, which can be done forever to quickly diminishing returns.
If there is sufficient support for scrapping and restarting the
vote, despite the fact it has been started, I would not be in
opposition. But I am not going to stick my necj out and propose it;
however, if people think the ballot needs more options, and that this
ballot is a mess, and they can't vote on it, and enough people stand up
to support that view, it might be better for the project to allow the
ballot to be amended, and reopen the discussion period.
Pournelle must die!
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C