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

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

>>"Darren" == Darren O Benham <gecko@debian.org> writes:

 Darren> On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 02:24:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> a) All general resolutions must start with an announcement to
 >> debian-devel-announce and debian-devel, with foolow ups
 >> redirected to -devel. 

 Darren> No.  resolutions won't be tracked on -devel.  If I get cc'd,
 Darren> I'll end up getting the whole flmefest dumped in my inbox
 Darren> because many people don't bother to trip headers.  That's
 Darren> also unacceptable.  The propper place is -devel-announce and
 Darren> -vote with follow ups to -vote.  If the person wants to cc
 Darren> -devel also that's up to them but that's also cross posting
 Darren> as far as *I* am concerned.  With this setup, people who want
 Darren> to follow voting topics w/o subscribing to and wading through
 Darren> the -devel list can.

        Fine. I had figureds that -vote would be related to the vote
  process, but if you wish to clutter up this mailing list with
  general discussions

 >> b) The announcement should be generally labeled as being general
 >> resolutions, including, but not limited to, a subject tag, like
 >> so: 
 >> Subject: [GENERAL RESOLUTION] ...
 Darren> I thought [Proposal] was enough (to distinguish from
 Darren> [Amendment] but if you prefer GENREAL RES instead, I can live
 Darren> with that.

        Yes, please, if for nothing else than to create a distinct
  header different from the conventions of -policy.

 Darren> It should be enough to state that this proposal
 Darren> is a GR in the body, though.  Infact, you state a liberal
 Darren> approach (no limited to I'd rather limit it to [P...] and
 Darren> [A...]  with GR mentioned in the body and be a little more
 Darren> strict about it.

        I would rather have the GR mentioned in both places (the
 subject as well as the body). 

 >> c) The call for votes should be submitted to -devel and -vote, after
 >> the discussion period is over and a final form of the resolution
 >> is available, along with any amendments, etc, which have recieved
 >> adequate number of seconds.
 >> d) The call for votes should contain the full text of the proposed
 >> resolution and amendments, along with the names of the proposer
 >> and seconds.
 Darren> Are you drawing a distinction between the CFV and the ballot?
 Darren> The vote doesn't happen automaticly.  The proposer or a
 Darren> sponsor has to Call for the Vote and then I pass out the
 Darren> ballets...

        I was not thinking about the ballots, but it would not be a
  bad idea to have the ballot have the text of the final proposal.

 >> The following are just proposals
 >> e) We may create a virtual package so that we can use the BTS to
 >> track the progress and status of the all current resolutions. The
 >> initial proposal, any amendments, and the final form and ballot
 >> should all be CC'd to the bug report (the intervening discussions
 >> need not be).

 Darren> I didn't like the Policy stuff going to the BTS, I object to
 Darren> GR stuff going there, too.

        Personal likes are not wuite as important as havin a single,
 publicized palce for keeping track of the current resolutions,
 which is accesible through email and http, and follows well known
 conventions for access and usage that debian developers are already
 familair with. 

        If you have an alternate methodology of keeping track of
 things with similar functionality, bring it forth. Statements of
 personal preference do not quite cut it.

 >> f) Mandate a pre prosal, or require that there have been a period of
 >> discussion prior to calling for a general resolution. Include a
 >> rationale in the initial proposal that details when the
 >> discussions were held, and why we think a resolution is required
 Darren> That's what getting "enough" sponsors is supposed to do.  If

        You are wrong. Getting enough sponsors is to cut down on
 frivoulous resolutions, and ensure that there is a bare minimum of
 support. It does in no way assure a minimum period. I take it you
 have not been observing what happens on the -policy group: something
 is proposed, and immediately garners folowers (seconds).

 Darren> the required 5 come automaticly, then maybe we should raise
 Darren> the minimum or do away with it all together instead of adding
 Darren> another layer of preproposal.
        No, the number of seconds is unrelated to pre discussion time
 periods (and I suyspect that you'l have to raise the number a
 lot to get the period inflated). On the other hand, raising the
 number to a hundred or so would cut down the number of these
 proposals to an acceptable volume.


 Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is
 irksome and three minutes is a long time. A.E. Houseman
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: