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

Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)

Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for 	the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [Raphael:]
> > > I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
> > > selected. I would restrict it to:
> > > - The proposer of each resolution or amendment
> > > - The seconders of each resolution or amendment
> > 
> > The point of this is to allow voters who do not wish to review
> > thousand-message mailing list threads to get a clear summary of the
> > issues from all of the relevant sides.  That means that everybody
> > relevant must be able to get their statement referenced but also that
> > the number of such statements should be kept reasonably small.
> How do you define "relevant"? The vote is run because someome proposed a
> GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
> them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to
> have a link to mail where they explain it.

Would you rather have one explanation by the proponent or thirty
explanations by the 3Q seconders ?  I don't understand why you seem to
want the latter.

Note that the seconders put quite a lot of trust in the proponent
anyway, because the proponent can unilaterally accept amendments and
the process for having seconders then withdraw their support for the
amended version is non-default and cumbersome.

> > Anyone can make themselves a seconder simply by seconding something.
> > So in principle this means that anyone who wants to can get their
> > position statement referenced.  Surely that can't be what you meant ?
> Yes it is. It's also the reason that I don't want it to be on the ballot
> itself but only on the vote page, available to people who are looking for
> more background information on the proposal.

Well, I would like a smaller number of statements on the ballot
itself.  One per option plus a small number from notable `statutory'

> > Why did I list the Leader, named or overruled Delegates, the TC, and
> > the Trusted organisations ?  Because it might be that their decisions
> > are being overruled or preempted.  That means that they must have a
> > right to be heard, alongside their `accusers' as it were.
> It might be that a GR is about my job of administering alioth.d.o. Why am
> I not listed ? :-)

Are you not a Delegate in the relevant sense ?  If the DPL decided
that someone else should run Alioth, presumably you would have to go
along with that decision.

> > No, I would like the ballot paper to contain links to web pages
> > controlled by each of the relevant people.  A digested
> > hopefully-coherent position paper, with references and other
> > supporting material as the relevant people think appropriate, allows
> > each side to do the best job it can of being convincing.  That's quite
> > different from getting a link to the middle of some flamewar.
> I don't like the fact that the content of the page viewed is under
> control of the person and might change during the vote. That's why I
> wanted simple archived mails. But those mails should be readable on their
> own without needing to read followup or history.

I think we have fundamentally different views about what this is for
and how it should work.

Perhaps it would be best for us each to try to write up our own
proposal and see which gets support from other developers.


Reply to: