Call for votes: Bug#535645: Wrongful removal of ia32-libs-tools

[Steve Langasek]

I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
text of the resolutions.

 1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
    Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html

 2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
    information
    Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html

 3. Further Discussion

--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@...                                     vorlon@...

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:40:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.

>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html

>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html

>  3. Further Discussion

I vote: 1 2 3

--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@...                                     vorlon@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@...> writes:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as
> short summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for
> the full text of the resolutions.

>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html

>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html

>  3. Further Discussion

I vote 1 3 2.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[Bdale Garbee]

On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 21:40 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
>
>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html
>
>  3. Further Discussion

1 2 3

Bdale

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, Sep 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
>
>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html
>
>  3. Further Discussion

        I vote:
 1 2 3

        manoj
--
For a man to truly understand rejection, he must first be ignored by a
cat.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve Langasek (vorlon@...) [090902 06:40]:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
>
>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html
>
>  3. Further Discussion

123

(for those who are interessted I agree that documentation of the
decision wasn't the best, but well - this is not "how to document
decisions best", and I'm not going to vote 213 just to get more
written documentation that won't make any different on what is in the
archive in the end, we're not an bureaucracy)


Cheers,
Andi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:40:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
>
>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html
>
>  3. Further Discussion

I haven't really been following this, but I don't think
the ctte has the power to override a delegate, and last
I heard ftp-master was a delegation.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:

> I'm calling for votes on this issue.  The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
>  1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to remove ia32-libs-tools
>     Message-ID: <20090823065342.GA14135@...>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
>
>  2. Require the ftp team to reinstate ia32-libs-tools, or provide more
>     information
>     Message-ID: <1251227318.5849.738.camel@rover>
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00096.html
>
>  3. Further Discussion

I vote 1 2 3.


Don Armstrong

--
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
 -- John Brown, DEA Chief

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I haven't really been following this, but I don't think the ctte has
> the power to override a delegate, and last I heard ftp-master was a
> delegation.

My reading that it does, but only in the case where a delegate is
implementing a technical policy or decision.

6.1.1 empowers the CTTE to make any technical decision, but 6.1.4
modifies that to require a 3:1 majority when the decision has already
been made. Furthermore, if 6.1.4 doesn't apply to technical decisions
of a delegate, than only 6.1.1 applies, and only a simple majority is
needed.

For example, the policy editors are currently delegated, but 6.1.1
speaks specifically to policy. In a case where we were going to
override the policy editors, I think 6.1.4 and 6.1.1 should both
apply, but I'm certain that 6.1.1 does.


Don Armstrong

--
Let us chat together a moment, my friend. There are still several
hours until dawn, and I have the whole day to sleep.
 -- Count Orlock in _Nosferatu (1922)_

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I haven't really been following this, but I don't think the ctte has
> > the power to override a delegate, and last I heard ftp-master was a
> > delegation.

> My reading that it does, but only in the case where a delegate is
> implementing a technical policy or decision.

Absolutely.

--
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@...                                     vorlon@...

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I haven't really been following this, but I don't think the ctte has
> > the power to override a delegate, and last I heard ftp-master was a
> > delegation.
>
> My reading that it does, but only in the case where a delegate is
> implementing a technical policy or decision.

I wasn't sure that allowing a package in the archive is a "technical
policy".   But you do have technical reasons why you don't want
it.  And you can argue that it doesn't meet the "must not be so
buggy that we refuse to support it" part that allows it in the
archive.

I guess my problem is that the wording seems to indicate this
is under 6.1.4, while you think this is under 6.1.1.

> 6.1.1 empowers the CTTE to make any technical decision, but 6.1.4
> modifies that to require a 3:1 majority when the decision has already
> been made. Furthermore, if 6.1.4 doesn't apply to technical decisions
> of a delegate, than only 6.1.1 applies, and only a simple majority is
> needed.
>
> For example, the policy editors are currently delegated, but 6.1.1
> speaks specifically to policy. In a case where we were going to
> override the policy editors, I think 6.1.4 and 6.1.1 should both
> apply, but I'm certain that 6.1.1 does.

As I understand it, policy is not made by the delegates, it's DDs
that make proposals and approve it, and the delegates are just
there to help the process.

But I think 6.1.1 and 6.1.4 are different things, and 6.1.4 does
not extend/modify 6.1.1.  Changes to policy would fall under
6.1.1 and not 6.1.4.

But I guess this is getting a little off topic for here, and is
something we'll deal with when that happens.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...