Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very > convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things > that I wonder:
> - (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe > adopting them? Maybe with some kind of role-playing game where some > random people are assigned adversarial roles? I'm quite happy to participate in this, although I don't know how to get started or how to organize it. I've mentally run through various scenarios to try to anticipate them in the draft, but since I wrote it I have blind spots and I definitely welcome anything that would help us go over the implications carefully. > - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the proposer is more > at risk to face vetos when accepting amendments. (I write that as I > accepted major changes as the proposer of a GR option some years > ago.) Would it make sense to limit the total number of sponsors, and > to only allow developers to sponsor one option ? This is a very good point. Currently, nothing except social convention prevents people from continuing to sponsor GRs or amendments (ballot options in the new proposal) after they've already reached the necessary number of sponsors. I tried to limit the impact of this a little by saying that only people who had already sponsored the ballot option at the time an amendment is proposed can object to it (the current constitution appears to allow someone to sponsor a GR just to object to an amendment), but that doesn't entirely fix the issue. Probably the simplest fix would be to add something like this as a new point A.0.3. Do people think it would be worth adding something like this? If a proposal (or ballot option; see section §A.1) requires some number of sponsors N, only the first N Developers indicating they sponsor the proposal become sponsors for the purposes of the subsequent process. Further sponsorships are not counted. Similarly, if more sponsors are needed (such as in cases of withdrawal; see section §A.2), only the number of Developers required to meet the minimum number of sponsors are added as sponsors. The Project Secretary determines the order in which sponsors indicate support. (I'm really not happy with the wording of that, and am finding it difficult to word clearly for some reason. Suggestions welcome, if folks think this is something the proposal should try to address.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>