Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Ian Jackson]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Filibustering general resolutions"):
> I am not sure this is the model we should be following )I know
>  we are currently not following it at all).  Your reading of the
>  wording means that, strictly speaking, there is only a two week (or
>  one week, if the DPL wishes) window for people to come up with
>  alternate proposals, and there could be proposals submitted with no
>  discussion at all, if the vote is called after the minimum discussion
>  period.

Indeed so.  When I wrote it I was hoping people would be more ready to
go to a vote (rather than go endlessly round in mailing list
flamewars) than it seems they in fact are.  If people disagree then
they can vote.

> The ambiguous point here is the word "accepted". Accepted by
>  whom? The proposer of the original proposal? Or the project secretary
>  as being a valid amendment to the proposal, whether or not accepted
>  by the proposers of the initial proposal?

There can be no real doubt about this, even if you don't take my word
for what I meant :-).

Look at where and how the word `accepted' is used in the document.
Nowhere is there any talk of an amendment being accepted or not by the
Secretary; the phrasing for the closest relevant concept is `made
formal'.


This argument in more detail:

Firstly, in my reading, A.1(2) defines `accepted' to mean `by the
proposer'.

But if you consider that as a descriptive rather than definitive
qualifier, the question arises, by who else might an amendment be
accepted or not ?  There's no textual support for anyone else to be
the decisive person, with respect to the specific word `accept'.

If that's not convincing, consider other uses.  `Accept' appears only
in Appendix A.  A.1(3) uses just `accepted' as part of `not accepted'
in obvious opposition to A.1(2); and it's clear that it doesn't mean
accepted by the Secretary because an amendment not `accepted' _will_
be voted on, which is the opposite of what would happen if we were
discussing the Secretary's role.  A.1(4) says `accepted by the
original proposer' to talk again about A.1(2) and A.1(3)'s acceptance.

A.2(4) is the paragraph in question, so I'll leave it aside.

A.4 also talks about `[un]accepted amendments', meaning amendments
accepted by the proposer; any other interpretation of `accepted
amendment' in A.4 would make a nonsense of it.  In particular, why
talk all the time of amendments accepted or unaccepted, but never talk
about the acceptedness (by the Secretary, we are to suppose) of
resolutions ?


Thanks,
Ian.


(PS: Sorry to reply only to this less-important thread and leave the
giant dunc-tank stuff to one side but I've had rather too much booze
and might do something rash.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:39:03 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal proposal,
>> allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short (say,
>> impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks). This means not only that the
>> interval is large, but a number of developers also feel that the
>> resolution is being stalled deliberately.

> I agree with Manoj that fixing the holes in the Constitution is a
> good thing, and I find Manoj's suggestion above a good solution to
> the (potential) problem. Manoj, are you going to write this out as a
> GR sometime soonish?

I am going to wait until some of the current GR's end, in
 order to maintain a reasonable GR related  workload  ...

manoj
-- 
Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. Kim Hubbard
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal
>  proposal, allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short
>  (say, impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks). This means not only that
>  the interval is large, but a number of developers also feel that the
>  resolution is being stalled deliberately.

I agree with Manoj that fixing the holes in the Constitution is a good
thing, and I find Manoj's suggestion above a good solution to the
(potential) problem. Manoj, are you going to write this out as a GR
sometime soonish?

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:13:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I still think that the constitution needs be amended, and here
>  is my off the cuff diff for it:
[...]

If you ever take this to a vote (but *please* wait until the current
stream of discussion^W flame^W "decision making" is over), I'll probably
second it. It seems sane.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:58 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Filibustering general resolutions"):
>> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>> developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>> up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>> changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>> number of very different proposals).

> I don't think that's true; I think you've misread it.

> A.2(4):

>  4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last
> formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was
> proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted.

> If the original proposers of the GR don't accept the amendment, then
> the discussion period isn't restarted.

I am not sure this is the model we should be following )I know
 we are currently not following it at all).  Your reading of the
 wording means that, strictly speaking, there is only a two week (or
 one week, if the DPL wishes) window for people to come up with
 alternate proposals, and there could be proposals submitted with no
 discussion at all, if the vote is called after the minimum discussion
 period.

The ambiguous point here is the word "accepted". Accepted by
 whom? The proposer of the original proposal? Or the project secretary
 as being a valid amendment to the proposal, whether or not accepted
 by the proposers of the initial proposal?

I have always construed to to be the latter. Being first past
 the gate does not give one any additional powers, in my view,
 including having the full discussion period, as opposed to a
 curtailed one for the last proposal to sneak in under the bar.

I still think that the constitution needs be amended, and here
 is my off the cuff diff for it:

--- /usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.1.1.txt	2006-03-14 08:37:56.0 -0600
+++ NEW_GR.txt	2006-09-20 21:11:53.0 -0500
@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
 2. propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions;
 3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections;
 4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections.
+5. propose or sponsor a motion asking for faster processing of a
+   stalled general resolution
 
   3.2. Composition and appointment
 
@@ -139,6 +141,14 @@
 7. Q 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.
+8. If the discussion period has not ended after 6 weeks from the
+   time the initial proposal was proposed and seconded, a minimum
+   of 4 * K developers may ask for expedited processing by asking for
+   the imposition of a deadline for the proposal. The discussion
+   period shall then start in 2 weeks from the time of the request
+   for expedited processing, with whatever proposal and amendments
+   wihch are at under consideration at the beginning of the discussion
+			 period. The Project Leader may vary the deadline period by p to a week.
 
 5. Project Leader
 
@@ -178,6 +188,8 @@
personal views.
10. Together with SPI, make decisions affecting property held in trust
for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.1.)
+   11. Vary the deadline for clossing of proposals for a stalled
+   general resolution.
 
   5.2. Appointment
 

manoj
-- 
Kids, the seven basic food groups are GUM, PUFF PASTRY, PIZZA,
PESTICIDES, ANTIBIOTICS, NUTRA-SWEET and MILK DUDS!!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Ian Jackson]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Filibustering general resolutions"):
> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>  developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>  up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>  changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>  number of very different proposals).

I don't think that's true; I think you've misread it.

A.2(4):

 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
amendments have been proposed and accepted.

If the original proposers of the GR don't accept the amendment, then
the discussion period isn't restarted.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:21:40 -0400, Benj Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

>> quote who="Manoj Srivastava" date="Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM
>> -0500"> 
>> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if
>> it feels like doing anything about it, of course.

> It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit
> (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems
> like the natural solution.

Not ideal. There can be legitimately large intervals in
 refining a project, in which people do not feel there is an attempt
 to filibuster. Ideally, human judgement should be involved --
 replacing judgement by automata or hard coded deadlines is not the
 way to go.

Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal
 proposal, allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short
 (say, impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks). This means not only that
 the interval is large, but a number of developers also feel that the
 resolution is being stalled deliberately.

This way, there is still a minimum about 8 weeks to come up
 with proposals (6+2), so there is a reasonable assurance that no
 legitimate proposals shall be left off the table due to someone
 rushing things through, and yet there is a upper limit to the
 filibuster. 

>> But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.

> It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and
> intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or
> is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something.

The past is not always prologue.

As the project grows, and apparently more polarized, it is
 easy to find K + 1 developers  at the extreme ends of any
 postiion. As the project grows, so do the extent that people go to to
 get their ends met (I'll refrain from pointing out the latest
 proposals on -vote).

> This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so
> I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to.

Umm, what in my mail conveyed urgency? I do think that we
 ought to close the loopholes in the constitution sooner rather than
 later, under the gun, but it is a simple change.

manoj
-- 
It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of
Providence. The Earl of Birkenhead
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>  developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>  up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>  changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>  number of very different proposals).
> 
> Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary,
>  would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any
>  proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order
>  to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not
>  specifically permit that.
> 
> I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the
>  powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong
>  procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters.

I think this is the correct decision.

> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering,
>  if it feels like doing anything about it, of course.

It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit
(something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems
like the natural solution.

>  But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.

It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and
intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or is
about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something.

This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so I
don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:13:41 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
>> And people tell me I am guilty of egregious abuse of power?

> Bla.

>> This is just a bunch of concerned developers very slowly crafting a
>> resolution. I am sure I can make my resolution come to perfection
>> over the course of several years.
>> 
>> If the DAM can suddenly exercise judgement, and it is not abuse of
>> power, why is a brainless secretary so very desirable?

> Manoj, please stop this crap. Either continue to work like a real
> secretary, or step down.

Ah, crap, is it? I am pretty sure I am not being paid enough
 to take abuse like this, unlike some other people.

And what have I done that is not working like a real
 secretary?



> I can understand that you have an opinion about all GRs that are
> proposed, but in your role as Project Secretary, you are supposed to
> be apolitical and you shouldn't try to make people's life harder
> than it needs to be. 

More accusation, also unsubstantiated. Can you point to any
 politically biased action in my official capacity as a secretary that
 made life harder than it needs to be? Or are you just fanning the
 flames? Or is this a hypothetical (if so, that does not appear to be
 the case).

> This does *not* mean that you should like a machine, but that you
> should, for example, consult someone else if you feel that your
> decisions could be influenced by your private opinion. 

I have never actually felt that, hence the consultation bit is
 moot.

> The job you have done for the last years could not be done by a
> mindless machine, that's why we have a person to do it. Please don't
> try to turn into the former just because some people needed to
> flame, but work on new ways to work around the problematic parts of
> being human. 

The issue is not about the being human bit -- the problem is
 whether the secretary has any discretion on the vote.d.o page (which
 is not constitutionally mandated, but was initiative to make life
 easier for the voters). The issue does seem to be whether or not the
 secretary should be replace by automata.

manoj
-- 
Safety Third.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Chris Waters]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:

> perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
> the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
> now.

Or perhaps we should make it harder/more painful to discourage
time-wasters.  :)

All proposals must be uploaded to a machine that has its input
throttled to one byte per second, and which stops to demand a password
every five minutes, for example.  No one would bother with that until
they were sure they had everything _just right_.  :)

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:15:14 +1000, Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>> developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>> up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>> changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>> number of very different proposals).
>> 
>> Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set
>> an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any
>> proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order
>> to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not
>> specifically permit that.
>> 
>> I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers
>> of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am
>> no longer willing to step in and break filibusters.
>> 
>> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if
>> it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR
>> has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.
>> 

> If a group of developers started filibustering a GR over and over
> again, the DAMs would be well within their rights to pull the
> accounts of the people in question.

> A denial of service attack is grounds for exclusion and DMUP states:
> "Don't by any ... reckless ... act interfere with the work of
> another developer ...".

And people tell me I am guilty of egregious abuse of power?
 This is just a bunch of concerned developers very slowly crafting a
 resolution. I am sure I can make my resolution come to perfection
 over the course of several years.

If the DAM can suddenly exercise judgement, and it is not
 abuse of power, why is a brainless secretary so very desirable? 

manoj
-- 
Well, you know, no matter where you go, there you are. Buckaroo Banzai
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Pascal Hakim]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>  developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>  up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>  changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>  number of very different proposals).
> 
> Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary,
>  would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any
>  proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order
>  to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not
>  specifically permit that.
> 
> I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the
>  powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong
>  procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters.
> 
> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering,
>  if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR
>  has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.
> 


If a group of developers started filibustering a GR over and over
again, the DAMs would be well within their rights to pull the accounts
of the people in question.

A denial of service attack is grounds for exclusion and DMUP states:
"Don't by any ... reckless ... act interfere with the work of another
developer ...".

Regards,

Pasc
-- 
Pascal Hakim+61 403 411 672
Do Not Bend


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering,
> >  if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR
> >  has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.
> 
> How about we see how to solve that when it actually happens? As far
> as I can see, in the case you're refering too, the deadline has only
> be moved into the future *once*; quite different from "indefinately"
> and I've seen nothing to believe that this group you refer to is
> interested in excercising this loophole to veto the proposal.

I'm not sure which group is being referred to here, but if it's the
change to a proposal that I presented, I have no problem with it being
interpreted as a change under A.1.6 if that's appropriate. [I had
assumed that it was clear what that proposal was the entire time, so
whatever the Secretary decides as far as to reset or not reset the
discussion period is fine by me.]

[With our present system, filibustering could be continued indefinetly
by any proposer, so long as enough seconders did not object... but
doing that intentionally would be pretty egregious, and hasn't
happened as far as I know.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. 
 -- Robert Heinlein

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Florian Weimer]

* Andreas Barth:

> perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
> the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
> now.

Perhaps pain is highly subjective in this case.  I guess it's less
bizarre if you've been exposed to Robert's Rules of Order.  (But I
still think that the Rules themselves are horrible.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060919 17:57]:
> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>  developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>  up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>  changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>  number of very different proposals).

perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change
the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is
now.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering,
>  if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR
>  has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.

How about we see how to solve that when it actually happens? As far as I
can see, in the case you're refering too, the deadline has only be moved
into the future *once*; quite different from "indefinately" and I've
seen nothing to believe that this group you refer to is interested in
excercising this loophole to veto the proposal.

I'll just keep my faith in the good intentions of these fellow
developers for now and only assume an attempted sabotage of a vote when
a bit more evidence to that matter surfaces. Let's wait and see what
happens, and give our collegues/peers/fellows the benefit of the doubt.


Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part