>> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General >> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000 >> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea, >> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC > Why are you saying 5 ? Your proposal requires 30.
Oh well. Imagine I wrote 30 there. :) > Recent votes have shown that some options tended to have more > seconds than the others but we never reached 30. We had 17 for > "Exclude source requirements for firmware" and 21 for > "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a > new proposal.". We never reached 30 as it wasn't neccessary, so people did not second an option after it got lots of seconders already. > Note that with those new requirements some interesting > amendments/alternate choices would not have made it in several of the votes > (although different rules would have probably lead more people to second). If they had been so interesting they sure would have reached 30 seconders, no? > Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable. See my reply to Bernd why I think its not. > It would be also be good to add a sentence inviting the seconders to > explain why they second the proposal. At least it would make the many > formal mails to second proposals somewhat interesting to read > (they could even be linked from the vote web page so that voters who have > not taken part in the discussion can refer to the reasoning of those who > have brought the option to the vote). As a must or as a should? A should would probably work. -- bye, Joerg <Getty> meebey: Ich kanns Dir remote machen;) <Getty> oh mann... erst denken dann schreiben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org