headers
Russ Allbery | 1 Nov 2006 04:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra <at> debian.org> wrote:

>> That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a
>> practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian.  I do
>> agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of
>> stronger consensus.

> Personally, I think the RFC 3160 view of '"rough consensus", meaning
> that a very large majority of those who care must agree' would be good
> enough.  What is "a very large majority" these days?  I suspect it
> should be larger than the margins that the DPL got in recent votes (3 to
> 1 and 5.77 to 1, if I've worked them out right).

Ah, okay, I think we can agree on that.  If we're just arguing over what
level of supermajority makes a consensus, I think we're just debating
practical application and not really the underlying principle.

> In general, it wouldn't be a practical requirement, but it's practical
> for most DPL powers.  It's one of a few things which stop DPLs having
> absolute power.  If the DPL cannot find a consensus, then there are
> other methods to reach a decision and the DPL has simplified access to
> some of them.

True.

>> Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working
>> groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which
>> there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 1 Nov 2006 10:52
Gravatar

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

Kalle Kivimaa <kalle.kivimaa <at> iki.fi> wrote: [...]
> Which issues would those be, then?

I've posted lists in the past, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html

> If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
> three:
> 
> 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation
> 2. Using project funds to pay some developers
> 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation
> 
> In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the
> controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not*
> to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a
> delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it.

AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as
being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html
It is still a current problem.

In No.2, aj decided to pay developers outside the project's control
by calling for donations to "fund debian release managers" instead of
improving dunc-tank, and there are no published measures or methods
for this "experiment" on our project AFAICT.  It is a non-design.

No.3 already has a Discussion Is Over - maybe it won't be so, but what
a way to consider something!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Sven Luther | 1 Nov 2006 11:09
Picon

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <kalle.kivimaa <at> iki.fi> wrote: [...]
> > Which issues would those be, then?
> 
> I've posted lists in the past, such as
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html
> 
> > If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
> > three:
> > 
> > 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation
> > 2. Using project funds to pay some developers
> > 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation
    4. Aj's handling of the non-free firmware vote.

Aj asked me to hold my call for vote on frederik's proposal, and asked that we
come up with a 'consensual' proposal. he then claims Manoj's proposal is
consensual, while not only it is clear it is not, and it is contrary to the
will of the kernel team. He then let's Manoj manipulate the vote to get his
pet resolution voted and avoid having the better 'consensual' resolution,
leaving the whole issue a complete mess, and forcing the RMs to release an
interpretation of the vote, which is at odds with what was actually voted on.

> > In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the
> > controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not*
> > to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a
> > delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it.
> 
> AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as
> being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 1 Nov 2006 12:39
Gravatar

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

Sven Luther <sven.luther <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.

Not really.  Messages like 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with 
that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in 
the long term.

> But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...]

I don't see how guessing others' views helps here.
--

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sven Luther | 1 Nov 2006 12:53
Picon

Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess.
> 
> Not really.  Messages like 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with 
> that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in 
> the long term.

Well, yes, the idea of the mediation was to solve the issue, not let it stay
open forever, and hope it would go away. I have tried to do my best, but Frans
is simply not making any effort, and since he has all the power and
satisfaction, why should he ?

Still, we can both agree 

> > But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...]
> 
> I don't see how guessing others' views helps here.

Well, given that the main complaint seems to be that frans did feel that i was
not respectful enough (private communication, so no mail archive), and others
have hinted that the release of etch was more important than solving this
(again private irc exchange), i really don't know what else to guess.

It would have helped if the mediation had involved some clear listing of the
actual grieves, instead of giving all the reason to frans as it did.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Martin Wuertele | 1 Nov 2006 21:07
Picon
Favicon

withdrawal of my proposal [was: Policy (re)delegation]

* Anthony Towns <leader <at> debian.org> [2006-11-01 19:44]:

> With this mail I'm formally delegating Debian's policy maintenance to the
> following group:
> 
> 	Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org>
> 	Russ Allbery <rra <at> debian.org>
> 	Junichi Uekawa <dancer <at> debian.org>
> 	Andreas Barth <aba <at> debian.org>
> 	Margarita Manterola <marga <at> debian.org>

I think this is a very good choice and therefore I withdraw the
"Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the
Package Policy Committee delegation I made in [1]. I see neitheri the
need to wait for the result of the immediate vote under section 4.2.2
nor to set the wml and other stuff for the actual vote.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html

yours Martin
--

-- 
http://martin.wuertele.net/ -- Debian -- OFTC -- SPI -- maxx <at> debian.org
<Rhamphoryncus> guess "lp0 on fire" finally got taken literally..
[on 20.11.2002 satie.debian.org burnt down due to a fire in the Twente 
university in Enschede, NL]
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane