Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Russ" == Russ Allbery  writes:

Russ> Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet.  I
Russ> got rather busy with non-Debian things for a bit.

Russ> To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several
Russ> significant issues and we need another revision.  I hope to
Russ> finish that soon, at least by next weekend if not sooner.

Russ> There are several things that I think are fairly
Russ> straightforward to fix.  The open questions that I was hoping
Russ> to get some further feedback on were:

Russ> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to
Russ> provide the short summaries at the end of the discussion
Russ> period, or should we specify that the Project Secretary writes
Russ> them?

We could leave that up to the project secretary.
I.E. allow the secretary to establish policies and procedures and refine
them over time.
Something like
"The project secretary may require summaries of ballot proposals and may
revise provided summaries."

I'd imagine that this is one of those things where different project
secretaries may view things differently depending on how comfortable
they are summarizing.

I think all too often we specify more than we need to in the
constitution.

Russ> * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in
Russ> the rule on when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote
Russ> after the end of the discussion period?

I do not object.

Russ> * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to
Russ> describe the Project Secretary starting the vote?

No, I'd prefer to keep call for a vote.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hi,

On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the
>   short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we
>   specify that the Project Secretary writes them?

I think it has always been a mix of both that has been working relatively
well. The proposer should likely suggest a wording but the project
secretary should likely have the final word in case of divergence and the
right to adjust them to avoid ambiguities with other options.

> * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in the rule on
>   when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote after the end of the
>   discussion period?

Fine for me.

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Russ Allbery]

Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet.  I got rather
busy with non-Debian things for a bit.

To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several significant
issues and we need another revision.  I hope to finish that soon, at least
by next weekend if not sooner.

There are several things that I think are fairly straightforward to fix.
The open questions that I was hoping to get some further feedback on were:

* Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the
  short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we
  specify that the Project Secretary writes them?

* Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in the rule on
  when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote after the end of the
  discussion period?

* Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to describe the
  Project Secretary starting the vote?

There are also a few wording proposals in the previous message to which
this is a reply.  Except for the one about how the Technical Committee
selects someone to run a GR process, I intend to adopt those in the new
version, so if anyone doesn't like them, please speak up.  For the TC
part, I plan on using Sam's proposed wording.

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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Russ" == Russ Allbery  writes:
>>> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
>>> 
>>> When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
>>> ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
>>> 4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
>>> minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
>>> does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of
>>> the Technical Committee.

>> How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

Russ> That was what I was assuming because I don't think the TC has
Russ> any other decision-making mechanism than that, but I guess
Russ> that's not completely clear in the constitution.  Maybe add
Russ> "(via a resolution)" after "delegate"?

I would object to this.  In particular I'd object to adding a
constitutional bar to the TC using some other decision making mechanism
were it to exist, or to making it easier to create such a mechanism.
I'd be happy to support adding text making it clear that delegation by
resolution is sufficient.  I just don't want to close out other
mechanisms


The only other such mechanism that  may exist today would be the TC
passing by resolution some operating procedures.
For example the TC might pass a general policy by resolution that unless
otherwise specified this power was delegated to the TC chair.
I don't want to handle the question of whether the TC can do that now,
and I certainly don't want to rule it out,
I'd object to exclusive language.

If someone feels the need I'd support something lik like adding "such as
by resolution".


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Russ Allbery]

Thank you very much for the review!

Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>6. If a 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
>>   cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
>>   vote.

> Can options be added or removed during that 24 hour period?

Yes; the intent was for that to follow naturally from 6.3.1.2 and the fact
that nothing says this cannot happen.  But maybe I should change the last
sentence to say "During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a vote,
but Technical Committee members may make ballot changes under 6.3.1.2"
just to make it explicit?

>> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
>> 
>>When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
>>ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
>>4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
>>minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
>>does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
>>Technical Committee.

> How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

That was what I was assuming because I don't think the TC has any other
decision-making mechanism than that, but I guess that's not completely
clear in the constitution.  Maybe add "(via a resolution)" after
"delegate"?

>> Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:
>> 
>> A.0. Proposal
>> 
>> 1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
>>sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
>>that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
>>labeling the ballot choice.

> I'm not sure how useful a summary is at the stage of the
> proposal. Depending on the other options that might get added later, it
> might not be clear.  So I'm not sure a "must" there is useful.

Good point.  This is the surface of a larger discussion that didn't really
get resolved.  Currently, the constitution says that whoever calls for a
vote is responsible for coming up with the summaries.  The goal here was
to shift that responsibility to the person proposing the option (since the
Project Secretary is now the one calling for a vote), but maybe that needs
to move to some explicit statement under calling for a vote?

Maybe dropping that from A.0.1 and changing A.3.2 to:

2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. The
   proposer of each option must provide a single-line summary of that
   option suitable for labeling the ballot choice. The Project
   Secretary at their discretion may reword the single-line summaries
   for clarity.

How does that sound?

Alternately, we could just say that the Project Secretary writes the
summaries, but I wasn't sure if that would be welcome or is a good idea.

>> 3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
>>ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
>>requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
>>being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
>>forward, it is removed from the draft ballot.  This does not change
>>the length of the discussion period.

> If they wait for more than 24 hours, I assume they need to follow A.1.2
> (and so can change the length of the discussion period)?

Yes.  Do you think that needs clarification?

>> A.3. Calling for a vote
>> 
>> 1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
>>publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
>>do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
>>must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

> Given all the options where 24 hours after the discussion period is over
> things can still change, wouldn't it be better to wait at least 24 hours
> before calling a vote?

I think there's a fundamental confusion here somewhere that I must
clarify, since there isn't anything that can happen 24 hours after the
discussion period is over.  There are a bunch of things that are allowed
to happen in the 24 hours immediately before the discussion period ends
(and other things that can't happen in that period).

The other reading of ("within 24 hours of the end of the discussion
period") never occurred to me, although it's obvious in retrospect.

Maybe in A.3.4 (for example) it would be clearer to say "no proposers or
sponsors may withdraw in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion
period"?  And likewise in A.3.5, "Actions to preserve the existing ballot
may be taken in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion period."

> It seems that this applies everything using the Standard 

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[The Wanderer]

On 2021-11-30 at 17:36, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:


>> 3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
>>after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
>>the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
>>of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
>>vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
>>after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.
> 
> I suggest rewording this to avoid the negative, so remove the
> "not", change the "unless" to "if". The same applies to some
> of the other points.

Speaking only for myself (and as someone not entitled to vote), I would
find the result of this more confusing, less understandable, and harder
to read - to such an extent that if I ran across it, I would be inclined
to suggest rephrasing it to use the negative instead.

If I'm parsing my own reaction correctly, the reason is that this would
change this from having the prohibition on making such changes during
that period be stated explicitly, to having it not be stated directly at
all, but only implied in "the exception that proves the rule" fashion.

At the very least, I think you'd need to use something like "if and only
if" rather than just "if". More complicated rephrasings might produce
better results; on that point, see below.

> It's also unclear what the "after or within 24 hours" means.

I parsed that (together with the rest of the phrase) as meaning that the
prohibition on such minor changes takes effect 24 hours prior to the end
of the discussion period, and lasts indefinitely thereafter.

The reason is that all periods after the end of the discussion period
are included by the clause "after the end of the discussion period", so
the "within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period" clause can
only be extending this backwards from the end, to cover the preceding 24
hours.

If I've got that right, then perhaps something like "Minor changes to
ballot options under point A.1.5 may only be made until the point 24
hours before the end of the discussion period, unless" might address
both points above at once?

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Section 6.3
> ---
> 
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
> 
> 1. Resolution process.
> 
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
> 
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
> 
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
> 
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
> 
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
>   canceled and has no effect.
> 
>5. Two weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
>   any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
>   canceled.
> 
>6. If a 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
>   cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
>   vote.

Can options be added or removed during that 24 hour period? I currently
fail to see how useful canceling is when it's going to start again 24
hours later without any changes.

> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
> 
>When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
>ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
>4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
>minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
>does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
>Technical Committee.

How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

> Section A
> -
> 
> Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:
> 
> A.0. Proposal
> 
> 1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
>sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
>that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
>labeling the ballot choice.

I'm not sure how useful a summary is at the stage of the proposal. Depending
on the other options that might get added later, it might not be clear.
So I'm not sure a "must" there is useful.

> A.2. Withdrawing ballot options
> 
> 1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
>proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
>which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
>any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
>proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
>sponsoring a new resolution.
> 
> 2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.
> 
> 3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
>ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
>requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
>being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
>forward, it is removed from the draft ballot.  This does not change
>the length of the discussion period.

If they wait for more than 24 hours, I assume they need to follow A.1.2
(and so can change the length of the discussion period)?

> 4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
>resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.
> 
> A.3. Calling for a vote
> 
> 1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
>publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
>do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
>must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

Given all the options where 24 hours after the discussion period is over
things can still change, wouldn't it be better to wait at least 24 hours
before calling a vote?

The case where I think we want an immediately is for an election.

It seems that this applies everything using the Standard Resolution
Procedure, including Technical Committee votes. Is it intentional that
the Secretary will be involved in those now, while that did not happen
before?

Does a call for vote mean that people can start voting soon afterwards?
I prefer to start a vote during a period I know I 

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

I too would like to second the following quoted proposal.  Thanks Russ.

On Thu 25 Nov 2021 at 07:25PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
> amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
> of the above" and fixes two typos.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
> mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
> Resolution for vote:
>
> * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used
>   strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing
>   additional ballot options.
> * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the
>   vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other
>   ballot options.
> * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot
>   options is difficult to understand.
> * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General
>   Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may,
>   contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above
>   options they wish to reject.
>
> The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in
> the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002,
> which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected
> result.
>
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
>
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
>   process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
>   ready to proceed to a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then
>   triggering a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the
>   vote is predictable;
> * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes;
> * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a
>   clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment;
> * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and
> * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary.
>
> It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for
> Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies
> responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General
> Resolution under point 4.2.1.
>
> Effect of the General Resolution
> 
>
> 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.
>
> Section 4.2.4
> -
>
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
> point:
>
> The default option is "None of the above."
>
> Section 4.2.5
> -
>
> Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
>
> Section 5.1.5
> -
>
> Replace in its entirety with:
>
> Propose General Resolutions and 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.
>
> Section 5.2.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Section 6.1.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Add to the end of this point:
>
> 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.
>
> Section 6.3
> ---
>
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
>
> 1. Resolution process.
>
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
>
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
>
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
>
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
>
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
>   

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
> amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
> of the above" and fixes two typos.

I've updated the website and changed the start of the discussion
period to 2021-11-25.


Kurt

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Timo Röhling  writes:
> 
> > I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
> > proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
> > implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?
> 
> > (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)
> 
> That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything
> unless they object.  (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

I agree with that.


Kurt

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Russ" == Russ Allbery  writes:

Russ> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates
Russ> the formal amendment to change the default option for TC
Russ> resolutions to also be "None of the above" and fixes two
Russ> typos.

I still support this and my second still stands.
I also agree this message is unnecessary as I understand the procedures.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Gunnar Wolf]

Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800]:
> > I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
> > proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
> > implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?
> 
> > (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)
> 
> That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything
> unless they object.  (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

Ok... Well, your new text has at least three full-text seconders and
one implicit seconder (who didn't full-quote it). It won't hurt if
people sign it ;-)

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Gunnar Wolf]

Thanks, Russ.

Seconded.

Russ Allbery dijo [Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800]:
> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
> amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
> of the above" and fixes two typos.
> 
> 
> Rationale
> =
> 
> We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
> mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
> Resolution for vote:
> 
> * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used
>   strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing
>   additional ballot options.
> * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the
>   vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other
>   ballot options.
> * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot
>   options is difficult to understand.
> * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General
>   Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may,
>   contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above
>   options they wish to reject.
> 
> The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in
> the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002,
> which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected
> result.
> 
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
> 
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
>   process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
>   ready to proceed to a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then
>   triggering a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the
>   vote is predictable;
> * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes;
> * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a
>   clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment;
> * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and
> * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary.
> 
> It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for
> Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies
> responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General
> Resolution under point 4.2.1.
> 
> Effect of the General Resolution
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Section 4.2.4
> -
> 
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
> point:
> 
> The default option is "None of the above."
> 
> Section 4.2.5
> -
> 
> Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
> 
> Section 5.1.5
> -
> 
> Replace in its entirety with:
> 
> Propose General Resolutions and 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.
> 
> Section 5.2.7
> -
> 
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
> 
> Section 6.1.7
> -
> 
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
> 
> Add to the end of this point:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Section 6.3
> ---
> 
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
> 
> 1. Resolution process.
> 
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
> 
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
> 
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
> 
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
> 
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
>   canceled 

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Russ Allbery]

Timo Röhling  writes:

> I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
> proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
> implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

> (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)

That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything
unless they object.  (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Holger Levsen]

I second this.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Section 4.2.4
> -
> 
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
> point:
> 
> The default option is "None of the above."
> 
> Section 4.2.5
> -
> 
> Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
> 
> Section 5.1.5
> -
> 
> Replace in its entirety with:
> 
> Propose General Resolutions and 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.
> 
> Section 5.2.7
> -
> 
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
> 
> Section 6.1.7
> -
> 
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
> 
> Add to the end of this point:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Section 6.3
> ---
> 
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
> 
> 1. Resolution process.
> 
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
> 
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
> 
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
> 
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
> 
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
>   canceled and has no effect.
> 
>5. Two weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
>   any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
>   canceled.
> 
>6. If a 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
>   cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
>   vote.
> 
> Add a new paragraph to the start of 6.3.2 following "Details regarding
> voting":
> 
>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 period ends. There is a quorum of two. The Chair has a
>casting vote. The default option is "None of the above".
> 
> Strike "The Chair has a casting vote." from the existing text and make the
> remaining text a separate, second paragraph.
> 
> In 6.3.3, replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
> 
> Add, at the end of section 6.3, the following new point:
> 
> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
> 
>When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
>ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
>4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
>minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
>does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
>Technical Committee.
> 
> Section A
> -
> 
> Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:
> 
> A.0. Proposal
> 
> 1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
>sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
>that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
>labeling the ballot choice.
> 
> 2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial
>two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and
>the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that
>ballot option.
> 
> A.1. Discussion and amendment
> 
> 1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed
>and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The
>maximum discussion period is 3 weeks.
> 
> 2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the
>requirements for a new 

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Timo Röhling]

* Pierre-Elliott Bécue  [2021-11-26 09:49]:

Seconded.

I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

(If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)


Cheers
Timo


--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   ╭╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   │ Timo Röhling   │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1  23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄   ╰╯


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Russ Allbery  wrote on 26/11/2021 at 04:25:45+0100:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at 
> 2021-11-26T04:25:45+0100 using RSA]]
> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
> amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
> of the above" and fixes two typos.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
> mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
> Resolution for vote:
>
> * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used
>   strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing
>   additional ballot options.
> * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the
>   vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other
>   ballot options.
> * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot
>   options is difficult to understand.
> * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General
>   Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may,
>   contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above
>   options they wish to reject.
>
> The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in
> the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002,
> which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected
> result.
>
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
>
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
>   process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
>   ready to proceed to a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then
>   triggering a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the
>   vote is predictable;
> * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes;
> * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a
>   clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment;
> * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and
> * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary.
>
> It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for
> Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies
> responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General
> Resolution under point 4.2.1.
>
> Effect of the General Resolution
> 
>
> 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.
>
> Section 4.2.4
> -
>
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
> point:
>
> The default option is "None of the above."
>
> Section 4.2.5
> -
>
> Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
>
> Section 5.1.5
> -
>
> Replace in its entirety with:
>
> Propose General Resolutions and 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.
>
> Section 5.2.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Section 6.1.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Add to the end of this point:
>
> 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.
>
> Section 6.3
> ---
>
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
>
> 1. Resolution process.
>
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
>
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
>
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
>
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
>
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote 

GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

[Russ Allbery]

Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
of the above" and fixes two typos.


Rationale
=

We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
Resolution for vote:

* The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used
  strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing
  additional ballot options.
* The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the
  vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other
  ballot options.
* The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot
  options is difficult to understand.
* The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General
  Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may,
  contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above
  options they wish to reject.

The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in
the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002,
which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected
result.

This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by

* separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
  process since they have different needs;
* requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
  ready to proceed to a vote;
* setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then
  triggering a vote;
* setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the
  vote is predictable;
* extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes;
* modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a
  clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment;
* changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and
* clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary.

It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for
Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies
responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General
Resolution under point 4.2.1.

Effect of the General Resolution


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.

Section 4.2.4
-

Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
point:

The default option is "None of the above."

Section 4.2.5
-

Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."

Section 5.1.5
-

Replace in its entirety with:

Propose General Resolutions and 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.

Section 5.2.7
-

Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".

Section 6.1.7
-

Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".

Add to the end of this point:

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.

Section 6.3
---

Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:

1. Resolution process.

   The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
   resolution for vote:

   1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
  This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
  being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer
  of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.

   2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
  ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
  proposed.

   3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
  the process is canceled.

   4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
  ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
  if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
  calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
  canceled and has no effect.

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

   6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
  after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in