 |
|
|
|
Next: Wake up early tomorrow
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 22, 2007
Posts: 376
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Social committee, legislature, sanctioning [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: linux>debian>vote (more info?)
|
|
|
Bas Wijnen <wijnen RemoveThis @debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> One of the things that I find troubling about the idea of the social
>> committee is that I think it takes the idea of a democratic body and
>> some vague notions that smart people can work anything out and applies
>> them to problems that are considerably thornier than the technical
>> problems our existing example deals with.
> I'm not sure what example you're talking about, but I think we all agree
> that what we're trying to solve is an extremely hard problem. But we're
> Debian. We try anyway. And we try to do it the best way possible, not
> just acceptable. 
The tech-ctte is the example that I think the soc-ctte is partly modelled
after. It works pretty well and handles internal disagreements, but it's
aided in that by the fact that the questions are very technical and voting
is used to resolve disagreements. I'm not sure the same tools would work
here. Taking votes on difficult personal issues often ends up being a
lose-lose situation, where every voting outcome escalates the situation in
a different way and at least creates the appearance of factions.
I do want to stress, though, that I may be too pessimistic and I don't
want people to stop trying to put something together. I'm more just
airing my worries in case they spark any thought or in case thinking about
them in advance helps head them off.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 22, 2007
Posts: 376
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Post subject: Re: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Bernhard R. Link" <brlink.RemoveThis@debian.org> writes:
> But if there is such an situation and there is heated disagreement
> outside of this body, how would having only one side of that in the body
> help? That would only make a body supposed to defuse such a situation to
> be weapon for one side and thus could even rise such a problem to much
> higher spheres.
It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement here
and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should decide
that we can't really intervene." I don't know if that's more likely or
less likely with a group of people who work well together but may be
mostly or entirely on one side of an issue, or with a group of people who
are representative but don't work well together.
> Thus I think something more proportional is better than something more
> cloneful. Unless someone comes up with an idea for a system where anyone
> disliked stronly by a reasonable large minority cannot become elected at
> all. (and that system is not vulnerable to tactical voting, which I
> think it most likely would be as there is no way to let people honestly
> distinguish between "I dislike" and "I like the other side better").
Try this reduction of my worry (which may be very unlikely): Suppose we
have two basic factions in Debian, one that thinks the soc-ctte is a good
idea, and one that thinks it's a horrible idea. If you have proportional
representation of both sides, that means you should elect a few people to
the soc-ctte who think it's a horrible idea and should never do anything.
If those people act to represent their constituency, they should try to
block any action by the soc-ctte on any topic. What does that do to the
relations between people on the soc-ctte and the general group dynamic?
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I'm not saying that the above is the specific problem that I'm worried
about. It's rather just a useful simple reduction of the sort of conflict
that could happen over other things, and since it's so absolute, it's
easier to reason about.
As mentioned, I'm very leery of this sort of situation for personal
reasons and it may be that I'm just way too conservative about not
creating these sorts of tensions among working groups. It may just not be
a problem. It may be that the people who get elected via whatever means
to the soc-ctte will all be people who can get along with others even if
they disagree sharply and who know how to keep disagreements from
escalating. That would be great.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:00 am
Post subject: Re: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Ian Jackson <ian.DeleteThis@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> So, as I have said before, we should use straight per-candidate
> approval voting.
[...]
> and if more people vote `yes' for Alice than vote `no' for Alice then
> Alice is appointed - regardless of any votes for or against Bob,
> Carol, etc.
Isn't that always going to result in an unrepresentative committee?
It looks even more like blackballing than the SPI method. A majority
could prevent any minority representatives being elected if they wish,
which leads to having only poodles from minorities. Yuck.
Should team size be determined in advance? I think so.
There is the oft-mentioned optimal team size of about seven
active members. http://www.qsm.com/process_01.html
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501
How many more than seven would we need, to expect seven to be active?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:10 am
Post subject: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Russ Allbery <rra DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
> It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
> soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement here
> and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should decide
> that we can't really intervene." [...]
This raises a question.
I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly
on one side), it shouldn't intervene.
What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd
expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do
nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:20 am
Post subject: Re: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:55:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> There is the oft-mentioned optimal team size of about seven
> active members. http://www.qsm.com/process_01.html
> http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501
>
> How many more than seven would we need, to expect seven to be active?
In one of my university classes I was told that the axiomatic overhead
for telecommunications is 40%... and that's just for hardware and software,
no mention of humanware
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:20 am
Post subject: Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
> > It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
> > soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement
> > here and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should
> > decide that we can't really intervene." [...]
>
> This raises a question.
>
> I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
>
> However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly
> on one side), it shouldn't intervene.
>
> What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
> announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
>
> As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd
> expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do
> nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it?
This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the
difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing
But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to
debian-project...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 am
Post subject: Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Josip Rodin <joy RemoveThis @entuzijast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
[...]
> > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
> > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
[...]
> This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the
> difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing
Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference
between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing
situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide.
There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and
written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some
of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those
will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I
think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in
those cases.
Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester.
> But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to
> debian-project...
I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden
on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:40 am
Post subject: Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> > > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> > > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
> [...]
> > > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
> > > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
> [...]
> > This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the
> > difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing
>
> Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference
> between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing
> situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide.
>
> There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and
> written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some
> of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those
> will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I
> think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in
> those cases.
>
> Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
> situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
> where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester.
Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever
want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is
not fair?
Please see Message-ID: <20071009221042.GA3055 DeleteThis @keid.carnet.hr> on -project
for my last take on this general stance.
> > But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to
> > debian-project...
>
> I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden
> on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it.
Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least
it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 39) Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:40 pm
Post subject: Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Josip Rodin <joy.DeleteThis@entuzijast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
> > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
> > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester.
>
> Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever
> want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is
> not fair?
Am I being trolled? I mean that soc-ctte should either:
1. do something to support an existing fair situation;
2. seek replacement of an unfair situation.
That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null
alias, should not be a regular option.
> Please see Message-ID: <20071009221042.GA3055.DeleteThis@keid.carnet.hr> on -project
> for my last take on this general stance.
What bit? "placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel
ideas"? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp
even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context.
> > I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden
> > on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it.
>
> Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least
> it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote.
-project is listed as "Miscellaneous Debian" on http://lists.debian.org
while -vote is "Development". If you feel that's wrong, please file a
bug.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 40) Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:33:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
> > > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
> > > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester.
> >
> > Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever
> > want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is
> > not fair?
>
> Am I being trolled?
You're not.
> I mean that soc-ctte should either:
> 1. do something to support an existing fair situation;
> 2. seek replacement of an unfair situation.
>
> That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null
> alias, should not be a regular option.
Well, yes.
> > Please see Message-ID: <20071009221042.GA3055.TakeThisOut@keid.carnet.hr> on -project
> > for my last take on this general stance.
>
> What bit? "placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel
> ideas"? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp
> even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context.
No, I meant the general stance as in:
| | 1. The Social Committee's purpose is to promote constructive and
| | agreeable relations between Debian Developers and others involved
| | with Debian.
|
| This should also mention - documenting the social norms and procedures
| that are used by developers and others to achieve the same purpose.
Since unfair situations don't usually promote constructive or agreeable
relations, supporting those situations wouldn't happen. Right?
> > > I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden
> > > on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it.
> >
> > Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least
> > it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote.
>
> -project is listed as "Miscellaneous Debian" on http://lists.debian.org
> while -vote is "Development". If you feel that's wrong, please file a
> bug.
I think that categorization was meant to say that users can expect to find
something interests them on -project, whereas only developers will find
-vote interesting; but I see how this can be turned around.
In reality both lists are oriented towards develop*ers*, not develop*ment*,
because we usually mean packages etc when we refer to development.
I'll file a bug.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux