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

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         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
Like I said, I really don't care where the actual discussion is held.  I
only follow it so far... What I *do* want is 1) not having to follow -devel
to find seconds and 2) not get the rest of the discussion cc'd to me (if
someone suggests cc'ing secretary).

>         Yes, please, if for nothing else than to create a distinct
>   header different from the conventions of -policy.
Hmm... Then how about [GR P...] [GR A...] etc?  I'd like to make sure the
header is a little different for each action to to be sure the author
sets/changes the subject in these cases.

>         I would rather have the GR mentioned in both places (the
>  subject as well as the body). 
Makes no difference...

>         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.
I think Branden did a good job on his CFV, personally.  Maybe I'll work on
something "automatic" that'll include such text.  The Ballots are autogen'd
right now...

>         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.
Sure, mailing list and their archives... I would hope we don't have so much
activity as the -policy group that the lists/archives methods become

>         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).
>         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.

The idea is to increase the number of seconds beyond the immediate camp
followers (which seem to be about 5-7 based on the last two non-DPL votes),
certainly not 100.  That would be the entire body of voters.
The act of trying to get the sponsors should/would generate the

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: pgpE4SEPBvbaD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: