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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>>         The proposal we used before is choice 5 in the current
>>  ballot, and that does indeed have a 1:1 majority like we did
>>  before. The devil lies in the details (and I have explained the details
>>  before too) -- which is that we state that the fiormware blob be
>>  released under a DFSG free licence.  This means we explictly conform to
>>  the DFSG, Without that clause, in choice 2, we are just accepting any
>>  firmware blob, with any license, which means that we are allowing for
>>  the DFSG to be violated
>>         I do not think we released before with known violations. We
>>  released with things we strongly suspected as being violations; since
>>  we strongly suspect the blob was not the preferred form of
>>  modification, but we do not know for a fact.
> How is this different now btw?

        I don't know if it is. Choice #5 allows us to release, if this
 is the case.

>>> * Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant
>>>   number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were
>>>   grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly.  There
>>>   wasn't much attempt to compromise or discuss this, and I came away from
>>>   that with a bad taste in my mouth.
>>         Have we not been discussing this for weeks now? Related options
>>  belong on the same ballot.  Not doing so allows for strategic voting to
>>  game the issue. This is not really an opinion piece, this is a known
>>  flaw of splitting votes where condorcet is used.
> Because you seem to only have considered splitting the vote with the
> existing options and have no where suggested it would be better to split
> the options by topic and ask if the proposers and seconders would feel
> that was more appropriate...

        I am not sure I follow you here. My take is that the issue is
 how the project handles releases with firmware blobs; and the choice #4
 and #6 do address that, so they belong on this ballot; however, I can
 see vote_004 and vote_005 be run immediately after which just consider
 options 4 and options 6 separately.

        Indeed, we can start the empower the RM vote and firmware is an
 exception in the DFSG votes on jan 2, 2009.

>>> * One role of the secretary is to interpret the constitution.  The
>>>   constitution states fairly clearly the process of decision-making
>>>   for decisions of this type, such as whether a given package violates
>>>   the DFSG, or how to weigh the implications of the Social Contract.
>>>   Yet that decision-making process is not reflected in the ballot or
>>>   in the presentation of the options.  Option 1 is either meaningless
>>>   or an override of a delegate decision, but the ballot doesn't
>>>   reflect this.
>>         While the options are not written by the secretary, and people
>>  would consider it a gross abuse of power if I wrote things up as I felt
>>  thy should be written; the proposer could have made the overriding the
>>  decision of a delegate explicit.
> You could have made it clear that's how you interpret things and offered
> the proposers and seconders to think about changing it?

        Err, I think that is how we have run votes in the past, and the
 constitution specifies it explicitly (prpoers say what the ballot looks
 like).  I asked for ballot language, and for wml for the web site from
 proposers explicitly.

>>         Usually, the ballot form is created by the proposer, it contains
>>  the title of the proposal, as the proposer set it, and any majority
>>  requirements.
> Unless the proposer does not set it, then it *seems* to me at least that
> you try to come up with something without actually consulting the
> proposer and seconders.

        I asked. I did not see any response to my pleas for wml or
 ballot forms.

>>         Again, the proposers or seconds could have improved the
>>  proposal. What does this have to do with the secretary.
> The secretary is supposed to have experience in taking votes and could
> suggest improving the proposal to the proposer and seconders?

        The secretary has no desire to undergo even more shit storms
 like this one for daring to voice their opinions on matter related to
 voting unless specifically required to do so as part of their duties.

        You want the secretary to be proposing wording changes and
 titles, the project needs to start treating its secretary a heck of a
 lot better.

>>         Point 1 has been answered; and again today, point 2 is related
>>  to not splitting of related proposals or candidates for resolving the
>>  release into spearate vote while we use condorcet, and point 3 is
>>  unrelated to decisions I took; heck, I'd love to rewrite proposals
>>  other people come up with as secretary, and make them "sane"; I can
>>  just see hows of protest were I to "rectify": or apply "editorial
>>  changes" to the proposals.
> ... if you do it without consulting and explicit approval of the
> proposers and seconders.

        You have your wish: the propose rand seconders are the ones that
 specified the content and titles of their proposals, so I took all
 their input absolutely.


In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of
24 hours.  -- Mark Twain, on New England weather
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: