[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus



On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 09:35:51PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> [ I'm cross-posting this, because it seems that people managed to miss what is 
> going on what with messages being spread across debian-vote, and 
> debian-publicity.  Please follow up to -publicity]
[I did not follow up to -publicity because I think it's a -vote issue.  I
did leave -publicity in because it was requested that the messages go
there]

>From talking to people over the weekend at the UKUUG Linux conference, I get 
> the impression that there is a consensus that the plain swirl is nicer that 
> the with-bottle-swirl, and that if we must have two logos, then it would be 
> better to have the plain-swirl in the widest possible use (because it's nicer).
> 
> If that's true, then we should be discussing it, rather than going to a vote 
> with practically no discussion whatsoever.  Decision making in Debian has 
> always previously been based on consensus, even if the consensus was simply 
> ``We should vote on it''.
> 
> In this case, I seen no evidence that there was a consensus for a vote, so I'm 
> not convinced that there will be any validity to the result.
The constitution, unfortunatly, doesn't work like this.  According the the
constitution, a vote will happen any time 6 developers want an issue voted
on (1 Proposer and 5 sponsors).  I'm not trying to argue right or wrong..
just is and if that's not the way it should be done, the constitution must
be changed not just a consensus opinion that we should do the voting
differently.

> 
> >From reading the archives again, it seems that events happened like this:
> 
>  Branden mentioned the vote idea (not sure which list).
The first time I saw anyting was to -devel and it was a formal proposal
(http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9906/msg00427.html)


>  I objected because (IIRC) it was too specific, and should allow for
>  other possibilities (such as alternatives that Raul could come up with).
Objections of a developer does not stop a vote... only the lack of sponsors
or the withdrawl of the original proposal.

>  Branden resubmitted his unchanged proposal to debian-vote and
>  debian-publicity
He did this in response to an open message I left stating that I can miss
official stuff posted to -devel and that proposals should be sent to either
-vote or secretary@d.o.

>  A bunch of people seconded it.
> 
>  Later, on -publicity, Adam Di Carlo said that we shouldn't be voting on
>  this in the first place.
> 
>  Raul followed up by saying that he agreed that discussions should continue
>  on -publicily, for a final decision, and that he'd come up with some more
>  versions of the logo.
> 
>  Witchert said that in that case, he was against the logo swap.
> 
> Then nothing more was said, as far as I can see.
But the proposal was never withdran, nor were any of the seconds.  Then the
proposer (after teh required time) called for a vote on the issue...

> 
> In the old days, that would have been the end of it, until we heard back form 
> Raul, but now we get automatically bulldozered into a vote, despite the fact 
> that there seems to be no consensus that we should even have a vote.
The constitution was designed to formalize a lot of stuff that was done
informally in the old days.  With 500+ developers, it's hard to be a close
group of intimate people so Ian and a bunch of others worked on a
constitution to govern decisions.  
> 
> The trouble is, that I think the majority of the people voting for ``Swap'' 
> are actually voting for ``Use the swirl, and forget the bottle'', which is 
> something different.
Very possible :(  I *hope* people are informed voters...

> I can see this sort of thing happening again --- we need to stop people 
> proposing votes before there has been a chance to build a consensus (without a 
> vote).  Otherwise the minority of people who can be bothered to vote, will be 
> able to push through all sorts of drivel.
How?  There is no restriction for proposing votes except that that they
must be a developer.  The only restrictions to actually holding the vote is
time (1-3 weeks, depending on the DPL) and enough sponsors (5).

> Do the right thing, and vote ``Further Discussion'' now!
And for those of you who want to, you can change your vote by "re voting"


-- 
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html        <gecko@benham.net>           <><  *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster          *
* <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org>  *
* <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org>   *
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgplmv4Kt1pxK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: