Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> schreef op 7 november 2021 22:33:48 GMT+02:00: >Hi all, > >I think the discussion has mostly died down on my draft GR. Wouter's >alternative proposal has some support, but not the sort of overwhelming >support that would lead me to believe I should drop my proposal in favor >of his, so I think that will be best handled as an additional ballot >option. > >Below is the draft GR as I intend to propose it. There are no substantive >changes from the previous draft, but I added a rationale and changed the >text to clearly describe the changes to make to the constitution. > >I intend to propose this formally as a GR on November 13th and ask for >sponsors. Please let me know if this would cause problems for anyone that >would warrant further delay. > >This is also the last call for any discussion or changes before this >becomes a formal GR and the discussion period clock starts. (Obviously, >people can still propose changes during the discussion period.) > >Draft GR begins here: > >Rationale >========= > >We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional >mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General >Resolution for vote: > >* The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used > strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing > additional ballot options. >* The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the > vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other > ballot options. >* The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot > options is difficult to understand. >* The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General > Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may, > contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above > options they wish to reject. > >The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in >the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002, >which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected >result. > >This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by > >* separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution > process since they have different needs; >* requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is > ready to proceed to a vote; >* setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then > triggering a vote; >* setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the > vote is predictable; >* extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes; >* modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a > clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment; >* changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and >* clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary. > >It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for >Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies >responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General >Resolution under point 4.2.1. > >Effect of the General Resolution >================================ > >The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian >constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution >requires a 3:1 majority. > >Section 4.2.4 >------------- > >Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be >varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader." (A modified version of >this provision is added to section A below.) Add to the end of this >point: > > The default option is "None of the above." > >Section 5.2.7 >------------- > >Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > >Section 6.1.7 >------------- > >Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > >Add to the end of this point: > > There is no casting vote. If there are multiple options with no > defeats in the Schwartz set at the end of A.5.8, the winner will be > randomly chosen from those options, via a mechanism chosen by the > Project Secretary. > >Section 6.3 >----------- > >Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with: > > 1. Resolution process. > > The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a > resolution for vote: > > 1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution. > This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option > being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer > of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option. > > 2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional > ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they > proposed. > > 3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, > the process is canceled. > > 4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the > ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but > if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to > calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is > canceled and has no effect. > > 5. Two weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to > any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be > canceled. > > 6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days > after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in > point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of > cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a > vote. > >Add a new paragraph to the start of 6.3.2 following "Details regarding >voting": > > Votes are decided by the vote counting mechanism described in > section §A.5. The voting period lasts for one week or until the > outcome is no longer in doubt assuming no members change their > votes, whichever is shorter. Members may change their votes until > the voting period ends. There is a quorum of two. The Chair has a > casting vote. The default option is "Further discussion." > >Strike "The Chair has a casting vote." from the existing text and make the >remaining text a separate, second paragraph. > >Add, at the end of section 6.1, the following new point: > > 7. Proposing a general resolution. > > When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a > ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point > 4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make > minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it > does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the > Technical Committee. > >Section A >--------- > >Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with: > > A.0. Proposal > > 1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and > sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of > that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for > labeling the ballot choice. > > 2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial > two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and > the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that > ballot option. > > A.1. Discussion and amendment > > 1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed > and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The > maximum discussion period is 3 weeks. > > 2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the > requirements for a new resolution. > > 3. The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that > none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the > amendment is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If > any of them do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged. > > 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a amendment of a > ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one > week from when that action was done, unless that would make the > total discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period > or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case, > the length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum > discussion period. > > 5. The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that > option (for example, typographical fixes, corrections of > inconsistencies, or other changes which do not alter the meaning), > providing no Developer objects within 24 hours. In this case the > length of the discussion period is not changed. If a Developer does > object, the change must instead be made via amendment under point > A.1.3. > > 6. The Project Leader may, at any point in the process, increase or > decrease the minimum and maximum discussion period by up to 1 week > from their original values in point A.1.1, except that they may not > do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end within 48 > hours of when this change is made. The length of the discussion > period is then recalculated as if the new minimum and maximum > lengths had been in place during all previous ballot changes under > points A.1.1 and A.1.4. > > 7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be > amended or withdrawn. > > A.2. Withdrawing ballot options > > 1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new > proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in > which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and > any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new > proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or > sponsoring a new resolution. > > 2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw. > > 3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a > ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the > requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this > being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping > forward, it removed from the draft ballot. This does not change > the length of the discussion period. > > 4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the > resolution is canceled and will not be voted on. > > A.3. Calling for a vote > > 1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will > publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may > do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and > must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period. > > 2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At > their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for > clarity. > > 3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made > after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless > the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning > of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the > vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections > after any such change before issuing the call for a vote. > > 4. No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may be > amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw within 24 hours > of the end of the discussion period unless this action successfully > extends the discussion period under point A.1.4 by at least 24 > additional hours. > > 5. Actions to preserve the existing ballot may be taken within 24 > hours of the end of the discussion period, namely a sponsor > objecting to an amendment under point A.1.3, a Developer objecting > to a minor change under point A.1.5, stepping forward as the > proposer for an existing ballot option whose original proposer has > withdrawn it under point A.2.1, or sponsoring an existing ballot > option that has fewer than the required number of sponsors because > of the withdrawal of a sponsor under point A.2.2. > > 6. The Project Secretary may make an exception to point A.3.4 and > accept changes to the ballot after they are no longer allowed, > provided that this is done at least 24 hours prior to the issuance > of a call for a vote. All other requirements for making a change to > the ballot must still be met. This is expected to be rare and > should only be done if the Project Secretary believes it would be > harmful to the best interests of the project for the change to not > be made. > > A.4. Voting procedure > > 1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement > have a 1:1 majority requirement. The default option does not have > any supermajority requirements. > > 2. The votes are counted according to the rules in section §A.5. > > 3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of > procedure. > >Strike section A.5 in its entirety. > >Rename section A.6 to A.5. > >Replace the paragraph at the end of section A.6 (now A.5) with: > > When the vote counting mechanism of the Standard Resolution Procedure > is to be used, the text which refers to it must specify who has a > casting vote, the quorum, the default option, and any supermajority > requirement. The default option must not have any supermajority > requirements. > >-- >Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > >
Hi Russ, I have a few outstanding things I'd like to change to my proposal, but I'm currently on holiday until the 15th without access to my laptop. I had intended to post those updates before I left, as well as notify people that I'm off, but things got a bit busy just before I left and it completely slipped my mind; please accept my apologies. I would appreciate it if you could wait just a little bit. -- Verstuurd vanaf mijn Android apparaat met K-9 Mail. Excuseer mijn beknoptheid.
