Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to its old form if the experiment were to fail. I don't understand: the motivation for my amendments is to avoid having yet another GR if the experiment were to fail... because if the experiment fails, that means we don't have a viable GR process, which means we're stuck and are responsible for running the project aground. I've been there, done that and want to avoid it here. If the experiment succeeds (GR-2Q or whatever works fine), then it needs another GR to make the increased seconding more permanent, but that's as trivial as a GR can be. The argument will be over and it'll be a simple evidence-based decision IMO. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of the other proposals. Eh, not the way I read that. But, well, this amendment as applied to the original proposal by Jorg. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or pretty much anything else we've not tried, while linking seconding to population size risks making the developers by way of a GR impotent, so let's keep a safeguard escape route. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Thanks for reading, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJy0AhmUY5euFC5vQRAkhRAJwMmC+lDbnRIJgQ21c/0gPKzMBiAQCgqSNj UlbqxzbAGBq9Nsl0VbVlXDg= =Tj36 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. ... with signature -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ pgpjLQE3ikvQa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray wrote: Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to its old form if the experiment were to fail. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of the other proposals. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Saturday 21 March 2009 13:00:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote: There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. That would be sick. And using the official DD count does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define something special now, in fear of people wont vote. If we think Q or 2Q is too high, someone could propose requiring floor(Q/2) or floor(Q/4). I think Q is still a good reference point. -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:57:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
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.
Uhm, I can understand the frustration argument about 2008_003 (even
though it is not a good argument per se to restrict access to the GR
mechanism), but not the one about 2008_002. The topic was of course
confrontational and not a pleasant one, but what was controversial
about the *handling* of that GR?
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
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
I was requested to forward the following mail by Sven Luther: - Forwarded message from Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr - From: Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr To: Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org, listmas...@debian.org Cc: Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org, debian-vote@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 proposer. = This would allow us to : 1) have a trully representative ballot 2) limit the heated
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Le Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:26:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf a écrit : 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. Hi Gunnar, Sven, and everybody else, actually in this GR we are seeing the other extreme, which is that the main supporters of the GR do not explain what problem it is trying to solve, aprart that the number K is too low. So the Project is again going the confrontational way: faction against faction, with the vote for checking who is stronger, and no discussion between the parties. Although I apreciate that there are no insults nor personnal attacks, my opinion on the level of the discussion about this GR is that it is close to zero. I really like Sven's proposal because there what starts a GR is the agreement that a vote is needed, not the impresson that one faction has strenghened its position enough to win a confrontation. In that context, having a high treshold could make sense. I also like the idea that the success of the GR is the duty of the proposer. I made some propositions along these lines in the constitutional discussion led by Matthew. We could also explore other possibilities such as a DPL veto mechanism. Anyway, the current GR really comes too early. I am not sure it will make it to the supermajority. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) I thought the constitution was pretty obvious that DPL elections are not general resolutions (for example, 5.2. Appointment says The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution) but to be clear, how about adding under sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.6 (inclusive) of the current constitution after proposed in clause c? Or 4.1.2 to 4.1.7 but I feel appointing a secretary should be excluded if appointing a DPL is, because that's another automatically-triggered GR, although it's rarer. Thanks, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJykXhmUY5euFC5vQRAqofAJ0QP1AlzngRwt/5Rna0yL6J3tsWXgCeOZil YDvHq1Oeq0YzLAsZ3arq+eY= =vTuG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-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 to...@rastageeks.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? The missing bit for me was in a year from when? So I would clarify with: Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any general resolution receiving the required number of seconds, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. I would second that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? Ah, that wasn't clear, indeed. I read it as if no general resolution is voted on within the first year, but that's not what you meant. Alternative wording, hrm. Something like: If one year after the first proposed general resolution since this resolution is accepted no proposal has received the required number of seconds, this resolution expires (...) Would seem clearer; the in a year in your wording really isn't stating explicitly enough that it is meant to start after the first GR proposal. - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) I thought the constitution was pretty obvious that DPL elections are not general resolutions (for example, 5.2. Appointment says The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution) Hm, good point. but to be clear, how about adding under sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.6 (inclusive) of the current constitution after proposed in clause c? Something like that could work, although you're right that it isn't actually necessary. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.
Truncated wdiff output that implements this is below, diff attached.
H34.2. Procedure/H3
OL
LI
PThe Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and
sponsored by at least [-K-] {+2*floor(Q)+} other Developers, or if proposed
by
the Project Leader or the Technical Committee./P
/LI
LI
PDelaying a decision by the Project Leader or their Delegate:/P
OL
LIIf the Project Leader or their Delegate, or the Technical
Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override them
by passing a resolution to do so; see s4.1(3)./LI
[-LIIf such-]
{+LIWhen+} a resolution [-is-] {+has been+} sponsored by at least
[-2K-] {+floor(Q)+} Developers,
or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts
the decision immediately on [-hold (provided-] {+hold, provided+} that
resolution itself says [-so)./LI
LIIf the original decision was to change a discussion period or
a voting period, or the resolution is to override the Technical
Committee, then only K Developers need to sponsor the resolution
to be able to-]
{+that it will+} put the decision [-immediately-] on [-hold./LI-]
{+hold immediately./LI+}
[...]
LI
PQ is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. [-K-]
{+floor(Q)+} is [-Q-] {+the nearest integer less than+} or [-5, whichever-]
{+equal to Q. 2*floor(Q)+} is [-the smaller.-]
{+two times floor(Q).+} Q [-and K-] need not be [-integers-] {+an integer+}
and [-are-] {+is+} not rounded./P
/LI
/OL
Don Armstrong
--
Religion is religion, however you wrap it, and like Quell says, a
preoccupation with the next world clearly signals an inability to cope
credibly with this one.
-- Richard K. Morgan Broken Angels p65
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--- gr_mod_second.wml.orig 2009-03-22 17:17:38.0 -0700
+++ gr_mod_second.wml.new 2009-03-22 17:25:46.0 -0700
@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
OL
LI
-PThe Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below.
-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./P
+PThe Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
+resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and
+sponsored by at least 2*floor(Q) other Developers, or if proposed by
+the Project Leader or the Technical Committee./P
/LI
LI
@@ -16,15 +16,10 @@
Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override them
by passing a resolution to do so; see s4.1(3)./LI
- LIIf such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers,
- or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution
- puts the decision immediately on hold (provided that resolution
- itself says so)./LI
-
- LIIf the original decision was to change a discussion period or
- a voting period, or the resolution is to override the Technical
- Committee, then only K Developers need to sponsor the resolution
- to be able to put the decision immediately on hold./LI
+ LIWhen a resolution has been sponsored by at least floor(Q) Developers,
+ or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts
+ the decision immediately on hold, provided that resolution itself says
+ that it will put the decision on hold immediately./LI
LIIf the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote on
@@ -68,8 +63,8 @@
/LI
LI
-PQ is half of the square root of the number of current
-Developers. K is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not
-be integers and are not rounded./P
+PQ is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
+floor(Q) is the nearest integer less than or equal to Q. 2*floor(Q) is
+two times floor(Q). Q need not be an integer and is not rounded./P
/LI
/OL
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:51:37PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Assuming that you'll provide explicit diffs for the constitution: Seconded. I'm not really sure how to interprete this. Does this mean you'll only second it after he changes the proposal to include the diff? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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 pgpquG13tPvwF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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-vote-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 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-vote-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 gw...@gwolf.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: 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. [...] Given that I feel the project's way of removing MIA developers is a bit random, a bit opaque and not an explicit part of the NM agreement, I think anything dependent on the actual number of Developers risks paralysing the democratic processes. Debian Membership should probably be addressed before increasing the GR requirements. Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal. Further, the discussion on debian-project in December asked for data http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00197.html and there's little available data to support the options in this GR. I think it's improper that the proposal did not link the discussion. Because there's little available data, I'm open to experimenting with this, but I think we need a safeguard to avoid paralysis. I think a so-called sunset expiry is a good idea. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I invite their supporters to accept this amendment. Otherwise, I ask for seconds for all three combinations. I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Hope that helps, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJx4JYmUY5euFC5vQRAkCtAJ9NHeYDTo9iK1naFzCWkgzvCHgqowCfc+r2 UL7jAjNUDckNaQhbeXcK19w= =L7mO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded. -- Gustavo Noronha k...@debian.org Debian Project signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:34AM -0500, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote,
there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do
not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not
active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have
had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial
disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds
requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is
fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the
decision process.
Full ACK, that's one of my concerns about this issue, concern that I
was going to raise. In particular, I think a proposal like this one
should be paired with a more visible report of how WAT runs are going
[1]. My preferred magic formula is certainly different if it has to
be computed on top of 1000 DDs or if it is computed over 400. The only
numbers I've seen about WAT runs are from an old blog post [2].
According to it a very few accounts have been disabled as inactive and
the number over which, in perspective, the formulae have to be
computed is apparently about the current 1000 total.
Question for Joerg, which happens to be both DAM and the GR proposer:
let's assume WAT runs stabilize, on which number of voters do you
think the magic formulae should be computed?
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/07/msg4.html
[2] http://blog.ganneff.de/blog/2007/07/14/wat-where-are-they.html
--
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
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
2009/3/23 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net: 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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END seconded. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Jaspert said: 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'd be very happy to see something like this. I'd like to propose an amendment something like (wording not finalized, so no call for seconds yet): While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x 1). I think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time sink for the project as a whole. Once it's clear we're going to have a ballot, though, I see no reason it should be difficult to represent a range of opinions on the ballot. Possibly it should be more difficult than it currently is, but I am not yet convinced either way. Thoughts? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:23:06 +, Stephen Gran wrote:
While the number of seconds required to start a vote should be nQ, the
number of seconds for an amendment should mQ, where m = n/x (x 1). I
think that it should be difficult to start a GR, as it's a large time
sink for the project as a whole. Once it's clear we're going to have a
ballot, though, I see no reason it should be difficult to represent
a range of opinions on the ballot. Possibly it should be more difficult
than it currently is, but I am not yet convinced either way.
I'm not sure either; I see your point about having a range of
opinions , but OTOH more options can also lead to more confusion, so
making them too cheap might be unfavourable.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`-NP: Die Schmetterlinge: Feiertag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Assuming that you'll provide explicit diffs for the constitution: Seconded. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. cu andreas - -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknGMWMACgkQHTOcZYuNdmPwigCeOOBGy9M/dNDD51OcyVxzbAan skkAnRxnFLrE8BL/zRs3RVONPU8KISGe =dn7D -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. gpg: Signature made Sun 22 Mar 2009 01:38:59 PM CET using DSA key ID 8B8D7663 gpg: BAD signature from Andreas Metzler (private key) ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin] In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: [second try, this with mutt instead of tin] In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. This time it was good. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpc0ujIGgiYm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:56:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded That's the 5th second for that option too. Now two options have been accepted. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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 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. 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. 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. 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. To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this GR until you get at least 30 seconds ? this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now), considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or a Delegate. 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. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr 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 pgpX6CC61DQwV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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 -- pixie hermanr_: I never studied german pixie I can just read some of it because it makes sense Tolimar . o O ( There is stuff Ganneff writes, which makes sense? ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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. 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. Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal. 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). - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314 this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now), considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or a Delegate. -- bye, Joerg * libpng2 no libpng3 no why ? because no yes no yes no yes bullshit no yes no yes no yes stop ? no when someday beep beep beep beep (Closes: #157011) -- Christian Marillat maril...@debian.org Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:41:58 +0200 pgpUDbLd85ZRf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END It would be nice if this also included the proposed changes to the constitution as a diff. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: 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. Perfectly agree. 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 think this is a problem, though. Not that debating over an arbitrary number is a good idea, but the number of developers as used for quorum calculation is not a good reference, IMHO, for the sheer fact that the DDs actually voting make up a rather small fraction of the total. There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. -- Guilherme de S. Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. That would be sick. And using the official DD count does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define something special now, in fear of people wont vote. -- bye, Joerg NM-fun: The Debian project, at least for me, is not a joke, [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org writes: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I agree that I would like to see a diff, ideally, but regardless, seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ pgpPM9U2ss1rd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying 20 out of 1000 should be easy is only partially true, because it becomes 20 out of 400 if you consider the number of developers actually participating in any kind of voting procedure. It's not about creating a new number or basing the count on the last vote, it's just about taking this into account before ammending the constitution. Cheers, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore gpast...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
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
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said as an example. Also, I don't believe that §4.2.3 is required if we're going to have the same procedure for both voting procedure changes, ctte overrides, and other general overrides Finally, I've modified the language of §4.2.2 slightly to make it clear that the proposal needs to explicitly say that it puts the delegate's decision on hold to avoid any need for the secretary to have to interpret whether it does or does not. On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] a) §4.2.1 is changed to read: The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and sponsored by at least 2*floor(Q) other Developers, or if proposed by the Project Leader or the Technical Committee. b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. b) §4.2.2 is changed to read: When a resolution has been sponsored by at least floor(Q) Developers, or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts the decision immediately on hold, provided that resolution itself says that it will put the decision on hold immediately. c) §4.2.3 is deleted. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] d) §4.2.7 is changed to read: Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. floor(Q) is the nearest integer less than or equal to Q. 2*floor(Q) is two times floor(Q). Q need not be an integer and is not rounded. e) §4.2 is renumbered to remain in sequence. Don Armstrong -- Vimes hated and despised the privileges of rank, but they had this to be said for them: At least they meant that you could hate and despise them in comfort. -- Terry Pratchett _The Fifth Elephant_ p111 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus.. - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded. Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org Irish police are being handicapped in a search for a stolen van, because they cannot issue a description. It's a special branch vehicle, and they don't want the public to know what it looks like. The Guardian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the currently needed limit already. The more the better. :) PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded! -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
