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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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
