>> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...] > No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and > suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.) After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something very similar to what I initially had, and then either propose an amendment myself that takes the lower value of Q only[1], or wait for someone else to do that. I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote, 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1] 2) Increase requirements to Q [3:1] and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit everyone. [1] Yes, the proposer can also propose an amendment. And doesnt need to accept it to change the initial proposal, so ending up with two vote options. (Assuming it gets enough seconds). > In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just > to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential > options before they have any chance of building consensus and others > will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts; > also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people. You wont need Q, 2Q, Q^1024 people to start a discussion period. This whole thread didnt need a single second to run like it is, usually all our flames don't need them. Yes, this is not the formal discussion period, but if you fear you wont get enough seconds, or might not be sure its the best to do, going the way I did with this seems to be ok, and able to draw attention from people. >> You'll note it was not proposed as a vote, >> even though it could easily get the required number of seconds to do >> so, but rather as a discussion point to further build that consensus >> among a wider forum, and hone some of the little (but important) >> details. > I applaud that it appeared pre-proposal[!], but I think the emphasis > is on building a majority (not consensus). The discussion so far > seems to have consisted of Joerg[*] and others defending the proposal > as it currently stands, rather than engaging in any > consensus-building. Of course I do defend what I want. Yet, I still read and keep in mind what others think. > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:- > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive; I did justify it. "If you cant find 30 people out of 1000 that are in the project, why bother 1000 to vote on it?". > 3. it favours organised campaign groups who gather in secret before > springing discussion on debian lists; Umm. If you think so. > I'd welcome other examples, particularly if the minimum is equivalent > to anything like the 30 or 60 in the original proposal. Which 60? Its 30 (2Q) or its 15 (Q) what seems to be wanted. > Also, if this reform doesn't work and we have trouble finding 30 > seconds for necessary resolutions, then I fear we'll have trouble > finding 30 seconds for another internal-policy bugfix resolution. I'd > feel safer if this was a limited-time trial at first, or at least the > previous SRP could be used to modify it, as a safeguard. So you think if something is clearly found to be a mistake at some point, the DDs wouldnt be able to admit it and revert it? It *only* takes 30 people to start that. -- bye, Joerg <madduck> and yes, the ftpmasters are not the most clueful people
Attachment:
pgpIg1AbqoWSA.pgp
Description: PGP signature