Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Pierre-Elliott Bécue  writes:
> Russ Allbery  wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:

>> Yes, indeed, no problem.  Currently, I'm aware of only one correction

> I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :)

>> 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a amendment of a

> I think it's "an amendment", not "a amendment".

Oh, thank you, I did entirely miss that.  Also now cued up.  I'm going to
give it another day for more eyes on the proposal and then will post a
(signed) revised version with minor changes.

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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Russ Allbery  wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:

> Kurt Roeckx  writes:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>> This is now at:
>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
>
> Thank you!
>
>> I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
>> indicated you'll have more later.
>
> Yes, indeed, no problem.  Currently, I'm aware of only one correction

I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :)

> 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a amendment of a

I think it's "an amendment", not "a amendment".

-- 
PEB


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.

> This is now at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003

Thank you!

> I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
> indicated you'll have more later.

Yes, indeed, no problem.  Currently, I'm aware of only one correction
(adding a missing "is" in A.2.3), which I intend to make as a minor
change.  There was an open question about the default option for the TC,
but I'd like to have people weigh in if they would like that to change.

(I believe that is not a minor change and, since the GR has started,
should be made via amendment if we are going to make it, so it would need
sponsors.)

Once we've sorted out the best place to put it on Salsa, I'll have the
changes in commit form.  It may be useful to link to that from the web
site and/or ballot, but I'm not sure the right procedural way to do that
(or if it should be done).

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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.

This is now at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003

I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
indicated you'll have more later.


Kurt

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jonathan Carter (2021-11-23 17:43:27)
> On 2021/11/23 17:59, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> would you be willing to let peb and I propose the secret ballots GR?
> >> We were hoping we were in line behind Russ.
>  >
> > Sure, no worries.
> 
> Ah, I also had one, but can wait my turn. I considered starting a thread 
> in -project in the meantime, but I'm slightly concerned of information 
> overload between a large discussion on -project and a running vote.
> 
> Not to complicate things further, but perhaps some additional 
> co-ordination of upcoming votes might help (assuming that's even possible)?

Perhaps simply put an ordered list up somewhere at our wiki?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Steve McIntyre]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 06:43:27PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>On 2021/11/23 17:59, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > would you be willing to let peb and I propose the secret ballots GR?
>> > We were hoping we were in line behind Russ.
>>
>> Sure, no worries.
>
>Ah, I also had one, but can wait my turn. I considered starting a thread in
>-project in the meantime, but I'm slightly concerned of information overload
>between a large discussion on -project and a running vote.

That's exactly my thought here too.

>Not to complicate things further, but perhaps some additional co-ordination
>of upcoming votes might help (assuming that's even possible)?

We could maybe try and do something, but I think it's normally quite
rare to be in this situation.

(Just remember I'm ahead of you in the queue! :-P)

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
  Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline,
  Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to
  concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Jonathan Carter]

On 2021/11/23 17:59, Steve McIntyre wrote:

would you be willing to let peb and I propose the secret ballots GR?
We were hoping we were in line behind Russ.

>

Sure, no worries.


Ah, I also had one, but can wait my turn. I considered starting a thread 
in -project in the meantime, but I'm slightly concerned of information 
overload between a large discussion on -project and a running vote.


Not to complicate things further, but perhaps some additional 
co-ordination of upcoming votes might help (assuming that's even possible)?


-Jonathan

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?

Thanks to Wouter's work, here's a wdiff against the webwml of the current
constitution.  This diff format makes a total hash of 6.3.1 and section A,
so it may be easier to read in the resolution text, but it hopefully makes
clearer the more minor changes made elsewhere.

Pending resolution of the other subthread about this, I will get this all
up on Salsa somewhere and then people can clone the repo with Git or use
the web interface to view the diff in whatever format they find the most
helpful.

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml
index 3a1247c3037..b87d18db9ca 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -234,13 +234,12 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
  

  
The[-minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by-]
[-up to 1 week by the Project Leader.  The-] Project Leader has a casting 
vote.  There is a quorum of [-3Q.-]{+3Q.+}
{+The default option is "None of the above."+}
  

  
Proposals, sponsors, [-amendments,-]{+ballot options,+} calls for votes 
and other
formal actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable
electronic mailing list designated by the Project Leader's
Delegate(s); any Developer may post there.
@@ -302,7 +301,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
  

  
Propose[-draft-] General Resolutions and [-amendments.-]{+ballot 
options for General+}
{+Resolutions.  When proposed by the Project Leader, sponsors for the+}
{+General Resolution or ballot option are not required; see+}
{+§4.2.1.+}
  

  
@@ -378,7 +380,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.

  
   The decision will be made using the method specified in section
   [-§A.6-]{+§A.5+} of the Standard Resolution Procedure.  The 
quorum is the
   same as for a General Resolution (§4.2) and the default
   option is None Of The Above.
  
@@ -471,7 +473,11 @@ view when making decisions in their capacity as Leader.
   including themselves; there is no default option. The vote
   finishes when all the members have voted, or when the voting
   period has ended. The result is determined using the method
   specified in [-section A.6-]{+§A.5+} of the Standard Resolution 
Procedure.
   {+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.+}
   
  

@@ -548,30 +554,62 @@ view when making decisions in their capacity as 
Leader.


  
[-The Technical Committee uses the Standard Resolution-]
[-Procedure.-]{+Resolution process.+}

[-A draft-]{+The Technical Committee uses the following process to 
prepare a+}
resolution [-or amendment-]{+for vote:+}

{++}
{+  Any member of the Technical Committee+} may [-be proposed by 
any-]{+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.+}

{+  Any+} member of the Technical [-Committee.  There-]{+Committee may 
propose additional+}
{+  ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they+}
{+  proposed.+}

{+  If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,+}
{+  the process+} is [-no minimum discussion period;-]{+canceled.+}

{+  Any member of+} the [-voting period lasts-]{+Technical Committee 
may call+} for [-up-]{+a vote on the+}
{+  ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but if+}
{+  any other member of the Technical Committee objects+} to [-one week, or 
until-]{+calling for a+}
{+  vote before+} the [-outcome-]{+vote completes, the vote+} is {+canceled 
and has+} no
  [-longer in doubt.  Members may change their votes.  
There-]{+effect.+}

{+  Two weeks after the original proposal the ballot+} is {+closed to+}
{+  any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be+}
{+  canceled.+}

{+  If+} a [-quorum-]{+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
  [-two.-]{+cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call 
for a+}
{+  vote.+}
{++}
  

  
Details regarding voting

[-The-]{+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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Wouter Verhelst  writes:

> Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/devel/constitution.wml
> (which is a version of the constitution with the changes as proposed by
> Russ) and
> https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-wouter/english/devel/constitution.wml
> (with the required changes as per my proposal). While doing so, I
> realized there were a few cross-references still that I needed to update
> as well.

Thank you so much!  This saved me tons of time.

> Russ, please review the patch I wrote, so as to make sure I haven't made
> any mistakes in your proposal.

I confirm that you accurately reflected the changes from my proposal
except that your version (quite reasonably) doesn't include the minor
change to add "is" in A.2.3.

I did a bit of reformatting with an eye to such a diff eventually being
merged that makes the HTML style match what appeared to be the prevailing
style in the rest of the document and will use that version to generate an
"official" diff of my proposal.  Not sure whether you want to rebase on
that version or not; I can push it up to Salsa in my own repo, or give you
a PR against your repo, or whatever else is convenient.

I'm happy to help with that rebasing if you'd like and give you a PR for
your branch as well.  It's the least that I can do after you did all the
work of recasting my proposal in webwml.

> Rationale
> =

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the collaborative and
collegial tone of this rationale even though by necessity you're laying
out how you disagree with my proposal.  It's really excellent.  And in
general I've been very happy with how constructive and positive this whole
discussion has been.

> Section A
> -

> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:

> A.1.1. Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks."
>by "The initial discussion period is 1 week." Strike the sentence
>"The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks".

> A.1.4. Strike in its entirety

> A.1.5. Rename to A.1.4.

I think you also want to remove:

In this case the length of the discussion period is not changed.

from this section because that's only there because of the provision in
A.1.4 that you are removing.  You can probably do this as a minor change
since it doesn't affect the meaning.

> After A.2, insert:

> A.3. Extending the discussion time.

> 1. When less than 48 hours remain in the discussion time, any Developer
>may propose an extension to the discussion time, subject to the
>limitations of §A.3.3. These extensions may be seconded according to
>the same rules that apply to new ballot options.

Minor point: We routinely in casual discussion use the term "seconded,"
but the constitution uniformly uses "sponsor" and the word "seconded"
doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution.  I adjusted my change while I
was drafting it to stick with that language and you may want to make the
same change here.

Same note for points 2 and 3.

> 2. As soon as a time extension has received the required number of
>seconds, these seconds are locked in and cannot be withdrawn, and the
>time extension is active.

> 3. When a time extension has received the required number of seconds,
>its proposers and seconders may no longer propose or second any
>further time extension for the same ballot, and any further seconds
>for the same extension proposal will be ignored for the purpose of
>this paragraph. In case of doubt, the Project Secretary decides how
>the order of seconds is determined.

"this paragraph" sounds like it may only be applying to point 3, and I
think you mean for the purposes of this whole section.  You may want to
word this as "for the purposes of this section" instead.

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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Holger Levsen  writes:

> I *believe* you'll find it in english/devel/constitution.wml in
> g...@salsa.debian.org:webmaster-team/webwml

> (*After* the GR when the change is actually going to be made please note
> that there are files like english/devel/constitution.1.$x.wml...)

Thank you!

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

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Steve McIntyre]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:49:02AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre  writes:
>
>Steve> Hey folks, I've got something else to talk about
>Steve> (firmware!!), but I'll wait until this current discussion and
>Steve> vote is finished before I start. Let's not overload people.
>
>would you be willing to let peb and I propose the secret ballots GR?
>We were hoping we were in line behind Russ.

Sure, no worries.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane

Re: Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Steve" == Steve McIntyre  writes:

Steve> Hey folks, I've got something else to talk about
Steve> (firmware!!), but I'll wait until this current discussion and
Steve> vote is finished before I start. Let's not overload people.

would you be willing to let peb and I propose the secret ballots GR?
We were hoping we were in line behind Russ.

--Sam

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Holger Levsen]

I second this.

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Section A
> > > -
> > > 
> > > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> > > 
> > > A.1.1. Strike the sentence "The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks".
> > 
> > This should additionally say,
> > 
> >   Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks." by
> >   "The initial discussion period is 1 week."
> > 
> > as my proposal does not allow the DPL to reduce the discussion time, and
> > instead reduces the discussion time always, relying on the time
> > extension procedure to lengthen it, if required (which the DPL can use
> > without seconds, once).
> > 
> > Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> > better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/devel/constitution.wml
> > (which is a version of the constitution with the changes as proposed by
> > Russ) and
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-wouter/english/devel/constitution.wml
> > (with the required changes as per my proposal). While doing so, I
> > realized there were a few cross-references still that I needed to update
> > as well.
> > 
> > Russ, please review the patch I wrote, so as to make sure I haven't made
> > any mistakes in your proposal.
> > 
> > All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
> > seconders would re-affirm that they agree with the changes I propose,
> > and apologies for the mess.
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =
> > 
> > Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this
> > amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different,
> > on purpose.
> > 
> > Our voting system, which neither proposal modifies, as a condorcet
> > voting mechanism, does not suffer directly from too many options on the
> > ballot. While it is desirable to make sure the number of options on the
> > ballot is not extremely high for reasons of practicality and voter
> > fatigue, it is nonetheless of crucial importance that all the *relevant*
> > options are represented on the ballot, so that the vote outcome is not
> > questioned for the mere fact that a particular option was not
> > represented on the ballot. Making this possible requires that there is
> > sufficient time to discuss all relevant opinions.
> > 
> > Russ' proposal introduces a hard limit of 3 weeks to any and all ballot
> > processes, assuming that that will almost always be enough, and relying
> > on withdrawing and restarting the voting process in extreme cases where
> > it turns out more time is needed; in Russ' proposal, doing so would
> > increase the discussion time by another two weeks at least (or one if
> > the DPL reduces the discussion time).
> > 
> > In controversial votes, I believe it is least likely for all ballot
> > proposers to be willing to use this escape hatch of withdrawing the vote
> > and restarting the process; and at the same time, controversial votes
> > are the most likely to need a lot of discussion to build a correct
> > ballot, which implies they would be most likely to need some extra time
> > -- though not necessarily two more weeks -- for the ballot to be
> > complete.
> > 
> > At the same time, I am not insensitive to arguments of predictability,
> > diminishing returns, and process abuse which seem to be the main
> > arguments in favour of a hard time limit at three weeks.
> > 
> > For this reason, my proposal does not introduce a hard limit, and
> > *always* makes it theoretically possible to increase the discussion
> > time, but does so in a way that extending the discussion time becomes
> > harder and harder as time goes on. I believe it is better for the
> > constitution to allow a group of people to have a short amount of extra
> > time so they can finish their proposed ballot option, than to require
> > the full discussion period to be restarted through the withdrawal and
> > restart escape hatch. At the same time, this escape hatch is not
> > removed, although I expect it to be less likely to be used.
> > 
> > The proposed mechanism sets the initial discussion time to 1 week, but
> > allows it to be extended reasonably easily to 2 or 3 weeks, makes it
> > somewhat harder to reach 4 weeks, and makes it highly unlikely (but
> > still possible) to go beyond that.
> > 
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Sections 4 through 7
> > 
> > 
> > Copy from Russ' proposal, replacing cross-references to §A.5 by §A.6,
> > where relevant.
> > 
> > Section A
> > -
> > 
> > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following change

Waiting for the voting vote to finish... :-)

[Steve McIntyre]

Hey folks,

I've got something else to talk about (firmware!!), but I'll wait
until this current discussion and vote is finished before I
start. Let's not overload people.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Mathias Behrle]

* Wouter Verhelst: " Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)" (Tue,
  23 Nov 2021 09:53:50 +0200):

>  aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.

Applies for me as well...
 

> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Sections 4 through 7
> > 
> > 
> > Copy from Russ' proposal, replacing cross-references to §A.5 by §A.6,
> > where relevant.
> > 
> > Section A
> > -
> > 
> > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> > 
> > A.1.1. Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks."
> >by "The initial discussion period is 1 week." Strike the sentence
> >"The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks".
> > 
> > A.1.4. Strike in its entirety
> > 
> > A.1.5. Rename to A.1.4.
> > 
> > A.1.6. Strike in its entirety
> > 
> > A.1.7. Rename to A.1.5.
> > 
> > After A.2, insert:
> > 
> > A.3. Extending the discussion time.
> > 
> > 1. When less than 48 hours remain in the discussion time, any Developer
> >may propose an extension to the discussion time, subject to the
> >limitations of §A.3.3. These extensions may be seconded according to
> >the same rules that apply to new ballot options.
> > 
> > 2. As soon as a time extension has received the required number of
> >seconds, these seconds are locked in and cannot be withdrawn, and the
> >time extension is active.
> > 
> > 3. When a time extension has received the required number of seconds,
> >its proposers and seconders may no longer propose or second any
> >further time extension for the same ballot, and any further seconds
> >for the same extension proposal will be ignored for the purpose of
> >this paragraph. In case of doubt, the Project Secretary decides how
> >the order of seconds is determined.
> > 
> > 4. The first two successful time extensions will extend the discussion
> >time by one week; any further time extensions will extend the
> >discussion time by 72 hours.
> > 
> > 5. Once the discussion time is longer than 4 weeks, any Developer may
> >object to further time extensions. Developers who have previously
> >proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the
> >number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders,
> >including seconders who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
> >extension will not be active and the discussion time does not change.
> > 
> > A.3. Rename to A.4.
> > 
> > A.3.6 (now A.4.6): replace 'A.3.4' by 'A.4.4'.
> > 
> > A.4. Rename to A.5.
> > 
> > A.4.2 (now A.5.2): replace '§A.5' by '§A.6'.
> > 
> > A.5. Rename (back) to A.6.
> > 
> > -- 
> >  w@uter.{be,co.za}
> > wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}  

Seconded.

-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6


pgpQoYfdQCOs8.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP