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

Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Much noise has been made by certain proponents of the earlier GR over
> the fact that there are three very similar options on the ballot.  They
> have suggested that this means the sponsors of these ballot options
> don't have their act together, and are incapable of agreeing on
> anything.
> It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
> sarge soon that we have proposed so many paths to reaching this goal.
> This is an effort to build consensus, not a lack of consensus on our
> part.

I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many
possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have
been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options
which are *not* present indicates that the proposals weren't very
carefully planned out).

I can see a whole range of ways in which options 1-3 could have been
better written. I'm not even sure where to start with 5. If any of
these win then we'll probably end up in a spiralling sequence of votes
for the rest of the year, gradually working out bugs in them. Of
these, option 3 is the one which will probably result in the *least*
further edits.

The reason why we got into this state is because "releasing sarge"
appears to be the sole priority - no matter how or what is released,
it *must* be released soon, at the expense of all else.

> This means that, if your objective in voting on this GR is also to undo
> the damage that has been done to our release process, you should
> consider voting *multiple* options above "Further Discussion", not just
> one.

(I was trying to refrain from the obligatory lecture on "How to vote
in a Condorcet system"; it gets *really* old. You sort the options
according to precise personal pairwise preferences; everything else is
either equivalent to this, or will backfire)

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: