Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

Lucas Nussbaum  writes:
> On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> There was a clear need for a clarification.  Why we had to vote on the
>> clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
>> implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me.

> Joerg Jaspert never made it perfectly clear that he would not implement
> anything before consensus. I repeatedly asked him to publicly say that
> (saying that I would withdraw my amendments if he did), but he never
> answered.

Hm.  Well, that wasn't the impression I had at the time, but I have no
particular grounds for thinking that you're mistaken and I'm right versus
the other way around.

I didn't really mean to re-open this (not that you could tell from my
original message -- sorry about that) so much as to note that I think we
vote a lot on things where it's unclear to me that a GR is the way to
address the problem, versus talking about it more.  The reason why this
proposal is appealing to me is that I'd rather not see GRs be used as a
stick with which to beat people, and if it's much harder to get one voted
on, I think they may be less common as an early recourse in a discussion
that isn't going one's way.

I like MJ's proposal for making the change in the required number of
seconds expire automatically if we end up having no GRs at all, though.
It does seem likely that within a year (or maybe two; I'm not sure which
timeframe makes the most sense) there will be *something* that warrants a
vote.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Romain Beauxis  writes:
> > For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision,
> > since the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen
> > while there was apprently no consensus for it.
> 
> There was a clear need for a clarification.  Why we had to vote on the
> clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
> implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me.

Joerg Jaspert never made it perfectly clear that he would not implement
anything before consensus. I repeatedly asked him to publicly say that
(saying that I would withdraw my amendments if he did), but he never
answered.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

Romain Beauxis  writes:
> Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :

>> FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either
>> of those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a
>> waste of the GR process).

> Well, even if I would agree with you, apparently this GR had 21
> supporters..  Far from the idea of some abuse from a small number of
> developpers.

> So clearly, this proposition would not even "solve" this "issue".

Sure.  Thus proving that this proposal isn't raising the seconding
requirement too high.  :)

>> Note that the effective conclusion of both of those GRs was to do what
>> was happening anyway and would have happened without the GRs, apart
>> from the secondary effects of making the whole thing more
>> confrontational.

> For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision,
> since the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen
> while there was apprently no consensus for it.

There was a clear need for a clarification.  Why we had to vote on the
clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Romain Beauxis]

Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:45:59 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
> > There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
> > seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
> > important topics.
>
> FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either of
> those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a waste of
> the GR process).

Well, even if I would agree with you, apparently this GR had 21 supporters.. 
Far from the idea of some abuse from a small number of developpers.

So clearly, this proposition would not even "solve" this "issue".

> Note that the effective conclusion of both of those GRs was to do what was
> happening anyway and would have happened without the GRs, apart from the
> secondary effects of making the whole thing more confrontational.

For 2008_002 in particular, there was a clear need of such a decision, since 
the previous announce had been made as if it was about to happen while there 
was apprently no consensus for it.


Romain


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

Romain Beauxis  writes:
> Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :

>> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
>> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
>> were handled.

> I understand the furstration about them, but I don't think that the
> number of seconders was the reasons for the abuse.

> There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of
> seconders would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on
> important topics.

FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that there was any need for either of
those GRs (particularly 2008_002, which did indeed strike me as a waste of
the GR process).

Note that the effective conclusion of both of those GRs was to do what was
happening anyway and would have happened without the GRs, apart from the
secondary effects of making the whole thing more confrontational.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Gunnar Wolf]

Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
> > This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> > generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> > were handled.
> 
> But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
> seconds, but rather in the way the debian project considers discussion
> consensus and such. It seems to me that most people see it more as a
> blood sport where everything is fine as long as his ideas win, than a
> process where there is respect for the ideas and convictions of others.

I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
quality is obviously thus improved. Sadly, I cannot but recognize the
aggressive pattern as one in which you repeatedly incurred, and that
led to your lamentable expulsion and this unique situation you call
censorship.

> In general, we should revisit the way we handle GRs, go away from the
> current process, where the first step of the vote is to make sure only
> ideas which have your support get on the ballot, instead of searching a
> ballot whose many options may give a chance of the voters to represent
> every possible opinion.
> 
> I strongly believe that the amendment process is the one who is
> responsible for this issue.
> (...)
> We should modify the GR process to be something like :
> 
>   1) Some DDs (5, 15, whatever) decide to have a vote about a topic.
>   There is no actual text yet at this stage, just a topic, and the DDs
>   have to give a motivation about why they want to have this topic voted
>   on.
> 
>   2) The main proposer of the vote is then made responsible of drafting
>   a ballot, which will have enough orthogonal options to represent all
>   the current of opinions in the project. To do this, he helds a
>   discussion on -vote, whose objective is not to defend ones idea, but
>   to make sure every current of ideas in debian is represented on the
>   ballot. This step should be non confrontational, and not lead to wild
>   debates. options should be added liberally, without the need of
>   seconds, and are of the responsability of the proposer.
>   The ballot options each should get a rationale and description as part
>   of this process
>
>   3) Once the ballot is ready, the proposed ballot is posted on d-d-a or
>   some other list reaching every developer, and a period of time (1 week
>   ?) is set for people who missed step 2 to object to the ballot. During
>   step 2 and 3, if the responsible of the vote proves stubborn, or
>   refuses to add options, an appeal to the secretary, DPL or technical
>   committee should be possible to avoid problems and couter-balance the
>   power of the responsible of drafting the ballot.
> (...)

Umh... Although this somehow builds on the same premise than mine
(separating the topic from the options/amendments), I do not believe
it would lead to better results. The current process, where each
amendment is proposed by different people, ensures all the ideas with
enough backing will be represented in the ballot. If all options were
submitted by a single person (even with the posterior review process
you mention - There would be inertia against making subtle changes to
an already submitted ballot), the options represented in it would come
from a single person which holds a single opinion. Even if this is not
a conscious process, and ahs the best intention from the submitter.

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Gunnar Wolf]

I was requested to forward the following mail by Sven Luther:

- Forwarded message from Sven Luther  -

From: Sven Luther 
To: Gunnar Wolf , listmas...@debian.org
Cc: Romain Beauxis , debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
debian-v...@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General 
resolutions
Message-ID: <20090325060117.ga19...@powerlinux.fr>
References: <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de> 
<2009035302.ga24...@yellowpig> <200903240112.34470.to...@rastageeks.org> 
<20090325035739.gf8...@cajita.gateway.2wire.net>
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
version=3.1.7-deb3

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 
> Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
> > Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> > > Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> > > process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> > > to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
> > 
> > I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems 
> > the 
> > main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation for it.
> 
> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> were handled.

But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
seconds, but rather in the way the debian project considers discussion
consensus and such. It seems to me that most people see it more as a
blood sport where everything is fine as long as his ideas win, than a
process where there is respect for the ideas and convictions of others.

In general, we should revisit the way we handle GRs, go away from the
current process, where the first step of the vote is to make sure only
ideas which have your support get on the ballot, instead of searching a
ballot whose many options may give a chance of the voters to represent
every possible opinion.

I strongly believe that the amendment process is the one who is
responsible for this issue.

The current proposal is only a stop-gap way of trying to limit votes,
and doesn't consider the real issue. Voluntarily not considering darker
motives which come to mind when reading this proposal and seeing the
position of the proposers. The proposers should keep in mind that this
proposal can be interpreted in such a darker way given a certain degree
of resentment of the project toward their high-handness, but that is
another issue.

In general, the GRs who turned the more disastrous (such as vorlon's
solo firmware GR, bypassing the kernel team's reflexion on the subject)
are often perceived as a way to force an opinion because one moves
first, and is more vocal about it. Many of the votes are of the "let's
vote, and be done with it, we would much prefer to work on technical
stuff" category.

We should modify the GR process to be something like :

  1) Some DDs (5, 15, whatever) decide to have a vote about a topic.
  There is no actual text yet at this stage, just a topic, and the DDs
  have to give a motivation about why they want to have this topic voted
  on.

  2) The main proposer of the vote is then made responsible of drafting
  a ballot, which will have enough orthogonal options to represent all
  the current of opinions in the project. To do this, he helds a
  discussion on -vote, whose objective is not to defend ones idea, but
  to make sure every current of ideas in debian is represented on the
  ballot. This step should be non confrontational, and not lead to wild
  debates. options should be added liberally, without the need of
  seconds, and are of the responsability of the proposer.
  The ballot options each should get a rationale and description as part
  of this process

  3) Once the ballot is ready, the proposed ballot is posted on d-d-a or
  some other list reaching every developer, and a period of time (1 week
  ?) is set for people who missed step 2 to object to the ballot. During
  step 2 and 3, if the responsible of the vote proves stubborn, or
  refuses to add options, an appeal to the secretary, DPL or technical
  committee should be possible to avoid problems and couter-balance the
  power of the responsible of drafting the ballot.

  4) if after the ballot scrutinization period, no objections where
  made, the ballot is put to vote.

  5) a heated discussion period can be had to defend the different
  ballot opinions, but this heated discussion is not weaved with using
  amendmens to confuse the issue, or tentatives to subvert existing
  proposals by subtle modifications of the text by seemingly innocent
  amendmens quickly accepted by the original 

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Romain Beauxis]

Le Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:57:39 Gunnar Wolf, vous avez écrit :
> > I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems
> > the main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation
> > for it.
>
> This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> were handled.

Ok.

I understand the furstration about them, but I don't think that the number of 
seconders was the reasons for the abuse. 

There was clearly a need for those GR, so raisong the number of seconders 
would just have the consequence to prevent us from voting on important 
topics.

Furthermore, I don't think it is wise to propose an "enhancement" and not 
explain what was the abuse with *details* and *examples*, nor how the 
proposal would enhance it.


Romain


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Russ Allbery]

Gunnar Wolf  writes:

> And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
> thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_ a
> ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might just be
> recognized as an important viewpoint to take into consideration, even
> for a particular DD who is against it.

If everyone seconds proposals that they'd vote above further discussion,
we *should* end up with a full slate of options which could pass.  It
shouldn't be necessary to second proposals that one would vote below
further discussion to get there.  (Although this does make some
assumptions that the population of seconders and the population of voters
is roughly equivalent.)

But yes, one does need to second anything one would vote above further
discussion, not just one's favorite choice, or it's possible to end up
without the best compromise position on the ballot.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Gunnar Wolf]

Romain Beauxis dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:12:34AM +0100]:
> Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> > Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> > process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> > to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.
> 
> I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems the 
> main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation for it.

This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
were handled.

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Gunnar Wolf]

Stephen Gran dijo [Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:28:23PM +]:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
> 
> You're aware that you can propose amendments as well?  It seems rather
> clunky to ask someone to write an amendment they don't agree with and
> hope that the wording is what you want.

To be fair, even more when I'm sitting at home after a full day of
work, I would really prefer putting my ideas in front of the others
and see if they make sense before formally proposing them. Besides,
quite often my English is quite below par to what I read on lists such
as this one - I am not saying that those are Lucas' motivations, but
they are nevertheless real :)

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Gunnar Wolf]

Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100]:
> This theory does not match the project history in any way. 
> vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient
> level of support to be valid to be called for vote:
> 
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
> The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
> 
> So the number of developers did not significantly increase as far as
> GR are concerned.
> (...)
> To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this GR until
> you get at least 30 seconds ?
> (...)
> I am afraid this GR will be inefficient to reach its objective (which
> I disapprove of):
> 
> 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made, only
> the number that will be callable for vote.
> 
> 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals.
> 
> 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just
> seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against.

Humh... Maybe this could be solved by having two numbers for two
different things instead of only one.

Maybe a higher number of developers than the 5 needed today should be
pursued to bring a topic to GR. However, to push for each of the
topic's possible resolutions, 5 would be still enough.

Very often, many people with heavily dissenting points of view will
only agree on the need to hold a GR. So, there we have enough people
(although 30 still seems too high for me - Specially given that only a
portion of the active DDs is also active in the lists and
decision-taking processes). The possible options (amendments) to be
voted are alternative ways out of the situation, and could be
satisfied with probably the current five seconders. 

And FWIW, just not to forget the point: Several months ago, when this
thread was last mentioned, I expressed my opinion on that _seconding_
a ballot should not be taken as _supporting_ the ballot - It might
just be recognized as an important viewpoint to take into
consideration, even for a particular DD who is against it.

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


pgpWshlggeqtw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Romain Beauxis]

Le Sunday 22 March 2009 23:53:02 Bill Allombert, vous avez écrit :
> Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR
> process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed
> to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process.

I agree. I fail to see where the GR process was abused. Since that seems the 
main argument in favour of this change, I fail to see the motivation for it.


Romain


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Luca Niccoli]

2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum :

>> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
>> to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
>> is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
>> a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because
>> they are not preferred options, but compromises.
>
> I agree, and I'm a bit concerned that everybody seems to think that it's
> a good idea to increasing the number of required seconds, while I really
> think that it's a terrible idea.

IANADD, but I think that if the concern is that amendments aren't
going to have enough seconds, you could amend the proposal not to
affect them: after all once you're having a ballot, having one more
option is not that huge effort more for the voter, so it seems
sensible that amendments need fewer seconds...
Cheers,

Luca


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 23/03/09 at 14:28 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> > rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> > proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
> 
> You're aware that you can propose amendments as well?

Yeah, but I'm lazy, so I'm trying to find a victim first ;)
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
> rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
> proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?

You're aware that you can propose amendments as well?  It seems rather
clunky to ask someone to write an amendment they don't agree with and
hope that the wording is what you want.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :sg...@debian.org |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Montag, 23. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> Then make an amendment that produces a lower requirement for seconding
> amendments?

sounds like an excellent idea to me, any takers? ;-)


regards,
Holger



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
> General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
> conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on
> our lists.  Restricting them is not going to help the project.
> 
> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
> to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
> is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
> a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because
> they are not preferred options, but compromises. 

I agree, and I'm a bit concerned that everybody seems to think that it's
a good idea to increasing the number of required seconds, while I really
think that it's a terrible idea.

Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
> already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
> 

It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.

Neil
-- 
 hermanr_: I never studied german
 I can just read some of it because it makes sense
 . o O ( There is stuff Ganneff writes, which makes sense? )


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Ben Finney]

Bill Allombert  writes:

> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general
> resolutions.

This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are
deprived. It does not discriminate and treats all DDs equally (as does
the status quo).

> General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes
> to handle conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are
> occasionally seen on our lists.

Yes, they're an essential tool. The proposal, AFAICT, does not seek to
change that fact.

> Restricting them is not going to help the project.

Increasing the bar for a proposed option to enter the ballot is
respectful of the time of all DDs. I think that certainly would help
the project, and I think the current proposal would help achieve that.

No restriction is proposed on *what* can be proposed for a GR; only
that GR proposals must show they meet a higher threshold of support
before going to a vote.

If a proposal can't even garner seconds from floor(Q) DDs, I think it
certainly does help the project to keep such a proposal off the
ballot.

> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of
> developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In
> particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot.
> Requiring of them a high number of seconds might bar them from being
> on the ballot, because they are not preferred options, but
> compromises.

This I find more interesting. I'll reserve opinion on this until I see
what counter-arguments are made.

> To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this
> GR until you get at least 30 seconds ?

That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.

> I am afraid this GR will be inefficient to reach its objective
> (which I disapprove of):
> 
> 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made,
> only the number that will be callable for vote.

Which, I predict, will weed out those proposals that do not have
sufficient support from interested parties to garner a significant
vote tally. That seems only a good thing.

> 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals.

How?

> 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just
> seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against.

The same could be said for the current system: a hypothetical cabal of
merely 5 developers could ensure that every proposal gets through by
doing exactly as you say. Yet apparently this has not happened. Why
would 25 such developers begin acting that way if 5 have not?

-- 
 \  “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his |
  `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


pgpK5XKY36Wxm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Neil Williams]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:53:02 +0100
Bill Allombert  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.

Umm, so vote against it? (Further discussion) ?

> 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made, only
> the number that will be callable for vote.
> 
> 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals.
> 
> 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just
> seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against.

Then make an amendment that produces a lower requirement for seconding
amendments?

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/



pgpwzEDnHMbwD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Neil McGovern]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
> The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
> 

Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.

Neil
-- 
< vorlon> We need a fresher website - WordPress is the perfect solution, that
way the website can get a new look every time a script kiddie comes up with a
new design


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org