Karsten Merker writes:
> On the other hand I see two issues in the current provision as a matter
> of principle:
> a) The constitution explicitly allows changing a vote during the
>voting period, so there is the possibility of convincing
>another member to change their already cast vote
Felix Lechner writes:
> Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. Sorry if it seems
> like I hijacked your thread.
No, no, this is great. The whole point is to have an open discussion.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful message! I think you're raising
some very interesting issues t
Timo Röhling writes:
> What do you think of the following:
> 6. If a vote is canceled later than 13 days after the original
> proposal, the mandatory vote will be postponed and start 24 hours
> after the time of cancellation. Until then, no one may call for
> another vote.
Oh, I li
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> The constitution's projection of hardened confrontation
Felix> entails a terrible reflexivity: A 3:1 supermajority leaves no
Felix> gray area. There is no gentle nudge and no room for
Felix> measurement. The maintainer was so wrong, fi
* Russ Allbery [2021-09-28 09:04]:
6. If voting is started prior to two weeks after the original proposal
via a call for a vote by a member of the Technical Committee, but
another member of the Technical Committee objects more than two
weeks after the original proposal b
Hi Russ,
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. Sorry if it seems
like I hijacked your thread.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:04 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I'm reading this as another message of support for a tied vote in the TC
> to result in an outcome of further discussion or to automati
Sam Hartman writes:
> However, I think we already have the complexity you are worried about:
> 4.2.1 permits both the DPL and the TC tto sponsor a resolution without
> additional developers.
> I think that it's not too hard to make this useful.
> Under section 6.3,
> say something like
> "When t
Hubert Chathi writes:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:51:05 -0700, Russ Allbery said:
>> A.3. Calling for a vote
> ...
>> 3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may be made up
>> until 24 hours before the call for a vote is issued. However, if they
>> are made after or within 24 hours o
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:51:05 -0700, Russ Allbery said:
> A.3. Calling for a vote
...
> 3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may be made up
> until 24 hours before the call for a vote is issued. However, if they
> are made after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion per
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> I don't recall the "when the outcome is no longer in doubt"
Russ> provision having been a problem in the past, so I admit my
Russ> bias is towards fixing the wording but maintaining the current
Russ> process. I'm not sure there's a need f
Karsten Merker writes:
> "Votes are decided by the vote counting mechanism described in A.6. By
> default, the voting period lasts for one week. Members may change their
> votes during the voting period. The TC can - even after the voting
> period has started - declare the voting period to end
Felix Lechner writes:
> For a committee that effectively appoints its own members, it is
> probably unwise to ask the Chair to resolve split votes except in the
> most trivial of cases. A general vote, on the other hand, would supply
> the broad democratic legitimacy needed to silence critics for
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:24 AM Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> whenever there is no clear majority in the TC ...
> the TC should ... propose a GR instead
For a committee that effectively appoints its own members, it is
probably unwise to ask the Chair to resolve split votes except in the
most trivia
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Procedurally, I don't believe we should automatically start a
Russ> GR because I think there's benefit to going through the normal
Russ> GR process. For example, who is the proposer of the GR for
Russ> the purposes of making subsequent ba
"Theodore Ts'o" writes:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 4. The Project Leader has a casting vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. The
>>default option is "None of the above."
> Should this be, "unless specified elsewhere"?
I think I confused matters by how I sh
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> 4. The Project Leader has a casting vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. The
>default option is "None of the above."
Should this be, "unless specified elsewhere"?
>
> 6.3. Procedure
>
> 1. Resolution process.
>
>The Technic
Richard Laager writes:
> If I understand correctly, the updated GR process handles this
> differently, by extending the clock on changes and prohibiting such
> changes at "the last minute" (the end of the maximum discussion period).
Correct.
> That could be another option here, which would have
Timo Röhling writes:
> In this context,
> 6.3.1.3. If all ballot options are withdrawn, the process is canceled.
> is slightly ambiguous, as the default option is technically also a ballot
> option. Maybe change it to "If all proposed ballot options…"?
> For that reason, I would also chang
* Russ Allbery [2021-09-28 09:24]:
Thank you, this is a good idea. The advance reference to withdrawal is
exactly why I didn't do that originally, but on further reflection I think
it's fine. I now have as A.1.7:
7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be amended
or wi
Thank you for the clarifications.
On 9/28/21 11:04 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
3. Another TC member calls a vote, possibly immediately after making some
last minute change to the ballot (which is allowed).
If I understand correctly, the updated GR process handles this
differently, by extending t
The Wanderer writes:
> As a possibility to consider, what about folding this into A.1.7? That
> already states that the default option cannot be amended, which likewise
> would seem to follow from the fact that it has no proposer and thus no
> one to make or accept amendments.
> Something like "
Russ Allbery writes:
> The scenario where this matters is this:
> 1. Vote starts. There is some controversy and discussion for a week and a
>half.
> 2. 12 days into the voting period one TC member is away or ill or
>otherwise unable to immediately respond.
> 3. Another TC member calls a
"Dr. Bas Wijnen" writes:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> In case there should be consensus about requiring the TC chair to
>> provide a casting vote in case of a tie, this would IMHO require
>> changing the wording of clause 6.3.2.
> I agree that if we keep t
Karsten Merker writes:
> Am Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> 7. [...] There is no casting vote. If there are multiple options with no
>>defeats in the Schwartz set at the end of A.6.8, the winner will be
>>chosen from those options by lot, via a mechanism cho
Richard Laager writes:
> First off, thank you for working on this!
> On 9/27/21 8:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 6. If voting is started prior to two weeks after the original proposal
>>via a call for a vote by a member of the Technical Committee, but
>>another member of the
On 2021-09-28 at 11:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gard Spreemann writes:
>
>> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>>> A.2. Withdrawing ballot options:
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>>> 4. The default option cannot be withdrawn.
>
>> This is the most minor of near-useless pedantic comments on my
>> part, but A.2.4 seems r
Gard Spreemann writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> A.2. Withdrawing ballot options:
>>
>> […]
>>
>> 4. The default option cannot be withdrawn.
> This is the most minor of near-useless pedantic comments on my part, but
> A.2.4 seems redundant: If only the proposer of a ballot option may
> withdraw
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> In case there should be consensus about requiring the TC chair
> to provide a casting vote in case of a tie, this would IMHO
> require changing the wording of clause 6.3.2.
I agree that if we keep the casting vote intact, it needs t
Russ Allbery wrote on 28/09/2021 at 03:51:05+0200:
> [Snip]
> This proposal was already sufficiently complex that it does not attempt to
> address the secret ballot. I believe that should be a separate discussion
> and a separate GR since it's substantially orthogonal to this one.
Note that we
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:38:48PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>...
> Also, I believe the rationale for this casting vote is the same as for
> the existence of a casting vote in general: to make sure that the TC is
> always able to make a decision, one way or another, and that there is
> never an
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 at 13:56:21 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> In this case the chair surely wouldn't vote to overrule
> themselves as that would be a completely nonsensical behaviour,
The casting vote cannot be used to select an option that is not in the
Schwartz set (loosely: it can only be
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:31:30PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >When the Technical Committee votes whether to override a Developer who
> >also happens to be a member of the Committee, that member may not vote
> >(unless they are the Chair, in which case they may use only their
> >
First off, thank you for working on this!
On 9/27/21 8:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
6. If voting is started prior to two weeks after the original proposal
via a call for a vote by a member of the Technical Committee, but
another member of the Technical Committee objects more than
Hello, and thank you for this effort.
Russ Allbery writes:
> A.2. Withdrawing ballot options:
>
> […]
>
> 4. The default option cannot be withdrawn.
This is the most minor of near-useless pedantic comments on my part, but
A.2.4 seems redundant: If only the proposer of a ballot option may
withdr
34 matches
Mail list logo