Re: Proposed amendment (was: Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian)
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 18:15:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Ok, given what you mentioned above, your preference is not easily
> > represented with the current GR draft, and I don't think this
> > amendment makes much sense (at least to me).
>
> Well, that's of course your prerogative, but the fact that you came up
> with a long list of options doesn't negate my right to attempt to add
> another option, even if you think it doesn't belong there.
Oh, absolutely, it just seemed a bit at odds with what you had just
mentioned before. And in any case, I was trying to find an option or
a vote solution that might satisfy your preference (which I've also
seen elsewhere), and to avoid ending up with a monster ballot, with
many options with very small variations over mostly the same.
> > You want a change, but don't care which; in which case I think it
> > would be more appropriate to let the people who care decide, as you
> > pointed out.
>
> That would of course be the best option, and I would be happy if we
> were to reach that.
>
> > I could see a decision by dice, being questioned as non-transparent,
> > etc.
>
> Hence the bit about "two other DDs need to be present". I suppose we
> could possibly require a video recording.
>
> Alternatively, we could choose some factoid about the vote itself; like
> "number of votes received modulo 3 decides the winner", or "(all
> timestamps on all mails sent and received by devotee during the course
> of this vote represented in unix epoch, added together), modulo 3 decides
> the winner", or some other variation on that theme.
>
> The point is to essentially pull a decision out of thin air if all other
> attempts to make a decision failed.
Yes also considered the video, but still, what about the dices
themselves, etc; the other options you mention are a bit better.
But in any case I don't think it's a good idea, really, it would
probably piss off anyone who cares about a specific choice, and
people would keep challenging the vote, becuse it was random.
Obviously if you still think it is a good idea and others agree,
then it will end up being included.
> We need a decision. I don't care what that decision is, but we need one.
> Since a few months, this endless "debate" has reached the point where
> every thread on every mailinglist, given enough time, eventually turns
> into yet another instance of the init system "debate". This is unhealthy
> for our community and needs to stop.
Well, I think a vote by the project, whatever the outcome (status quo,
postpone, specific option), will be a clear message that people
would stop going on about it (at least for a while :).
> > But could see an option that essentially says (with better
> > wording and all that):
> >
> > * Switch the init system to something else than sysvinit + sysv-rc.
> > - a decision for a new init system needs to be made now, letting this
> > undecided will keep causing frustration and project tension.
> > - the init system chosen will be the one the project at large has
> > a preference on, by selecting the winning option among options C-G.
> >
> > If something along those lines satisfies you, I'm happy to include a
> > polished version in the GR draft.
>
> That would introduce interdependencies between votes, which has a
> serious risk of skewing the result (e.g., people would feel more
> compelled to rank one option lower, so that the chance of it winning
> indirectly through this option gets smaller; that would mean they
> wouldn't be expressing their actual opinion).
>
> I don't think that's a good idea.
Actually I agree, because I just realized your preference (I think)
can actually be represented with the current ballot. You could rank
all options that specify a change from the current default above NOTA,
and the reset below. If you (as in the generic voter), really don't
care can rank all options above NOTA equally. Given this I'm not
planning on adding such option.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: