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 unmanageable. > 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 pre-discussion. -- 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:
pgp5HgP4VKg_k.pgp
Description: PGP signature