GNU bug report logs - #76503
[GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
Cc: 76503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, pinoaffe <pinoaffe <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#76503] [GCD] Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 13:22:22 -0400

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:50 AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 2025-05-13, Greg Hogan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 9:32 AM pinoaffe <pinoaffe <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If someone prefers that a GCD be withdrawn but would find its acceptance
> >> acceptable, they should probably "vote" accept, even if their preference
> >> is quite strong
> >
> > This preference is indicated by not voting. If 75% of team members
> > "vote" this way then the proposal fails.
>
> Do you mean if 75% of team members simply do not reply, the proposal
> fails? ... as a strategy when their preference is strongly against
> seeing the decision carried out, but not so strong as to completely stop
> the decision (e.g. "I disapprove")?

Yes, the fourth option is not to vote. And as you note I should have
said "more than 75%". We have strong ("support") and weak ("accept")
options for approval and strong ("disapprove") and weak ("abstain")
options for disapproval. One can even respond with a justification for
abstention (just refrain from the three magic words!).

We could explicitly list this option ("dissent"?) to provide a weak
alternative to disapproval but then we are further rejecting consensus
building.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.