Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those > > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion > > period. > I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted > (have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read that to confirm > it. Please re-read - this is not what "accepted" means in the context of an amendment :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion > period. I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted (have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read that to confirm it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120520001749.ga29...@roeckx.be
Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5
Hi Wouter, On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there > were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things > that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used > in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our > current DPL about that subject, I noticed that my reading of the > constitution may have been in error. > Section 3.1.2 of the constitution reads as follows: > [...An individual developer may...] > 2. Propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions > whereas section 5.1.5 reads as follows: > [...The project leader may...] > 5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments. > I had always, probably incorrectly, interpreted the lack of the words > "or sponsor" in that sentence as meaning that a GR proposal from the > project leader doesn't actually require sponsors. I'm quite certain that's the correct interpretation. Why do you now think this interpretation is incorrect? > That interpretation probably would have made sense if the word "draft" > wasn't in that sentence: in that case, non-DPL DD's could propose > "draft" GR statements, which would become "proposed" GR statements upon > acquiring enough seconds, and "GR" statements once they had been voted > upon. Had it not used "draft", then the Project Leader could bypass the > "draft" phase in that order. But at any rate, that's not what it says. A "draft" GR is one that is still in the process of being brought to a vote. The DPL has the power to put a draft up for consideration and start the clock on the amendment process, without requiring any seconds to do so. Likewise, under the Standard Resolution Procedure (Appx. A), the DPL can propose an amendment to someone else's resolution which becomes a formal amendment with no seconds required, and it can be accepted by the drafter of the original proposal or rejected and immediately become an additional ballot option. > Having thought about it this way for years (without ever having seen > it happen, of course), I do believe this is actually not that bad an > idea, as it would allow a DPL to fast-track a vote on an important > issue: recall that any accepted amendment resets the discussion period, > as per A.2.4; to avoid unnecessary delay in the procedure, the DPL could > use that power to bring an amendment on the ballot immediately, without > having to wait a few days for more formal seconds and thereby risk what > I'll call "accidental filibustering". Bearing in mind that the meaning of "accepted amendment" is an amendment *that's accepted by the author of the original proposal* and is thus incorporated into the first ballot option. Rejected amendments, i.e. those that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion period. > If people do not think I'm crazy, I'd like to propose a formal amendment > to make this reading the official one. I don't understand what should need amending here, as your reading appears to already be the correct one (and, indeed, the only one that makes any sense given the language in the constitution). If the current language is unclear, I don't mind trying to clarify it... but I think that could easily backfire. :) > At any rate, ignoring what may be no more than a silly brain fart on my > end, there's still a bit in there which could use some clarification: as > written currently, and ignoring the procedure under A.1, it would appear > as if non-DPL developers don't actually have the right to propose > amendments. This is obviously in error, and I think it wouldn't hurt to > fix that. This is currently covered in 4.2. 1. A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and sponsored by at least K other Developers, or if proposed by the Project Leader or the Technical Committee. Adjusting 3.1.2 to add "or amendments" would be correct and may be less confusing, but is not strictly required. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519235756.ga27...@virgil.dodds.net
General Resolution: Diversity statement, first call for votes
Hi,
This is the first call for votes for the General Resolution about
a diversity statement.
Voting period starts 00:00:00 UTC on Sunday, May 20th, 2012
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, June 2nd, 2012
The following ballot is for voting on a diversity statement.
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2012/vote_002
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "diversity".
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the platform.
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:
divers...@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
There are 2 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 2. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 2.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "Further Discussion" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "Further Discussion"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"Further Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"Further Discussion" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: divers...@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.
The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
91ec7d6e-0296-4199-ad9e-3ed34ecd080a
[ ] Choice 1: Ratify diversity statement
[ ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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(maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5
Hi all, When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our current DPL about that subject, I noticed that my reading of the constitution may have been in error. Section 3.1.2 of the constitution reads as follows: [...An individual developer may...] 2. Propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions whereas section 5.1.5 reads as follows: [...The project leader may...] 5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments. I had always, probably incorrectly, interpreted the lack of the words "or sponsor" in that sentence as meaning that a GR proposal from the project leader doesn't actually require sponsors. That interpretation probably would have made sense if the word "draft" wasn't in that sentence: in that case, non-DPL DD's could propose "draft" GR statements, which would become "proposed" GR statements upon acquiring enough seconds, and "GR" statements once they had been voted upon. Had it not used "draft", then the Project Leader could bypass the "draft" phase in that order. But at any rate, that's not what it says. Having thought about it this way for years (without ever having seen it happen, of course), I do believe this is actually not that bad an idea, as it would allow a DPL to fast-track a vote on an important issue: recall that any accepted amendment resets the discussion period, as per A.2.4; to avoid unnecessary delay in the procedure, the DPL could use that power to bring an amendment on the ballot immediately, without having to wait a few days for more formal seconds and thereby risk what I'll call "accidental filibustering". If people do not think I'm crazy, I'd like to propose a formal amendment to make this reading the official one. At any rate, ignoring what may be no more than a silly brain fart on my end, there's still a bit in there which could use some clarification: as written currently, and ignoring the procedure under A.1, it would appear as if non-DPL developers don't actually have the right to propose amendments. This is obviously in error, and I think it wouldn't hurt to fix that. Thoughts? -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for vote - Diversity statement for the Debian Project
Cyril Brulebois wrote: > The vote isn't open yet. Wait for a ballot on dda/dv, from the > secretary. ;) Heh, I was wondering :) Thx for the quick reply. /me gets another coffee now :) -- .''`.The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are : :' :strong at the broken places.- Ernest Hemingway `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519103940.GW10886@aenima
Re: Call for vote - Diversity statement for the Debian Project
Amaya (19/05/2012): > The Reply-To isn't set. So what email address should my vote be sent > to? > > Thanks, and excuse the silly question. The vote isn't open yet. Wait for a ballot on dda/dv, from the secretary. ;) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for vote - Diversity statement for the Debian Project
Francesca Ciceri wrote: > Dear Debian Developers, > > since the minimum discussion period is now over and since no amendments > have been proposed, I'm hereby calling for a vote. The Reply-To isn't set. So what email address should my vote be sent to? Thanks, and excuse the silly question. -- .''`.The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are : :' :strong at the broken places.- Ernest Hemingway `. `' `-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120519103332.GM10887@aenima
