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

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +0000, devotee@vote.debian.org wrote:
> The winners are:
>   Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
>             leading to a new proposal."

which, aiui was the original resolution, namely:

    The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project
    are not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are
    not provided by the project with as much help as might be possible,
    useful or required, nor opportunities to join the project.

    We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve
    contributors more closely with and within the project so that they
    can get both recognition and the necessary tools to do their work.

    We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce
    mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support
    of a large part of our community. We invite the DAM and all thee
    contributors to further develop their ideas in close coordination
    with other members of the project, and to present a new and improved
    proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future.

    Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus
    within the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a
    general resolution.

That the original resolution got to be choice 2 seems completely bizarre
to me, but whatever.

Looking through the actual votes, it seems somewhat reasonable to collect
them into about seven groups:

  a) "consensus before implementation" - 191 votes

        (everyone who voted either or both option 1 or 2 above option
         3 and FD, and didn't either option 1 or 2 below option 3)

  b) "implementation now seems good, but consensus is fine too" - 40 votes

        (everyone who voted option 3 highest, and either or both of options
         1 or 2 above further discussion)

  c) "implement it now and stop talking about it" - 21 votes

        (everyone who voted option 3 highest, and both options 1 and 2 equal
         or below further discussion)

  d) "this vote/these options suck" - 13 votes

        (everyone who voted further discussion first)

  e) "consensus w/thanks, or implementation, but don't just delay" - 8 votes

        (everyone who put option 2, option 3, option 1)

  f) "consensus, or implement, but no thanks" - 2 votes

        (everyone who put option 1, then 3, then 2)

  g) "i abstain" - 2 votes

        (Robert Millan and Mark Hymers)

The most common voting patterns were:

   2143 - 53 votes (a)
   1243 - 53 votes (a)
   1342 - 17 votes (a)
   3214 - 17 votes     (b)
   1132 - 12 votes (a)
   2134 - 11 votes (a)
   2314 - 10 votes     (b)
   2212 -  9 votes         (c)

(note "2212" above, includes equivalent votes like "--1-" and "4414",
etc; the (a),(b),(c) reflects which group I categorised them into above)

Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.

Seconds of the original (and winning) resolution:

  Remi Vanicat - didn't vote
  Luca Filipozzi - didn't vote

  Robert Millan - abstained

  Frans Pop - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Jurij Smakov - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Pierre Habouzit - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Raphael Hertzog - voted the amendment over the original resolution

  Amaya Rodrigo Sastre - voted the amendment, then further discussion
  Nico Golde - voted the amendment, then further discussion

  Colin Tuckley - voted for implementation

Interestingly Philipp Kern apparently seconded the original proposal
twice, at #10 and #18... Anyway, counting him just once, that leaves 11 of
the 21 people who proposed/seconded the original resolution voting it #1.

The proposer/seconds of the two amendments ("postpone until
vote/consensus" and "implement") were exactly the same, which presumably
doesn't give much indication on what their intentions were. In the end:

  Lucas Nussbaum - voted to postpone
  Raphael Hertzog - voted to postpone
  Stefano Zacchiroli - voted to postpone

  Damyan Ivanov - voted for implementation
  Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation

  Margarita Manterola - voted the original proposal first

Possibly interesting votes by various position holders (where "----"
means "didn't vote", and going from www.d.o/intro/organization for who
holds what positions):

     4132 Steve McIntyre

     --1- Christoph Berg (FD,DAM)
     ---- Michael Koch (FD)
     123- Wouter Verhelst (FD)
     --12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
     ---- James Troup (keyring)
     ---- Jonathan McDowell (keyring)

  Debian maintainer keyring team:
     ---- Joey Hess
     1342 Anthony Towns
     1342 Anibal Monsalve Salazar
  Debian maintainer keyring team, additional commit access:
     --1- Christoph Berg (FD,DAM)
     --12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
     ---- James Troup (keyring)
     ---- Ryan Murray (ftpmaster)
     2143 Marc Brockschmidt (ex-FD, in d-m Uploaders, not on www.do/intro/org)

     ---- Ryan Murray
     --12 Joerg Jaspert
     ---- Thomas Viehmann (ass't)
     4312 Kalle Kivimaa (ass't)
     1112 Mark Hymers (ass't)
     ---- Frank Lichtenheld (ass't)

  Technical ctte:
     ---- Bdale Garbee (chair)
     2143 Andreas Barth
     ---- Ian Jackson
     1342 Steve Langasek
     ---- Manoj Srivastava
     1342 Anthony Towns 

     ---- Manoj Srivastava
     21-3 Neil McGovern (ass't, ran the vote)

Lots of "didn't vote" in there; and three people with the same ordering as
the final outcome: Andi Barth, Marc Brockshmidt and, hrm, Neil McGovern,
who ran the vote. Interesting...!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: