Re: [not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This
> would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary,
> without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could
> you add those to your proposed resolution, so people can second all
> of them at the same time and reduce the number of emails on -v...@?

Agreed: if we have to vote on numbers, that I prefer to vote on a good
range of them.

Also, I would like to ask the secretary or the proposer to prepare,
for when the ballot will be ready, an informative page with the
numbers matching the current number of developers and the
corresponding number of needed seconds. I believe in a vote like this
one people will be likely to vote on the basis of those numbers.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
> smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000
> Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there
> should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with
> something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work.

I can't think of any vote in the (recent) past that shouldn't have
happened. Can you point at one?

> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal
> goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30
> supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth
> taking up time of everyone else.

I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This would
allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary, without being
restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could you add those to
your proposed resolution, so people can second all of them at the same
time and reduce the number of emails on -v...@?

> As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different
> options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal
> goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones
> pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a "Keep it
> like it is, no discusssion" is needed, I would accept such an amendment
> too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still).

I would like to have such an option as well.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


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