TC voting and amendment procedure

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Call for Votes (was Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order)"):
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 07:16:17PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >  [ ] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
> >  [ ] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo
> >  [ ] Choice F: Further discussion
> >  -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> [1] Choice M: Leave the choice up to the maintainers.
> [2] Choice F: Further discussion
> [ ] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
> [ ] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this.  My message was:

 * A proposal of a set of resolutions and unacepted amendments
   according to Constitution A.1.
 * A simultaneous call for votes according to Constitution A.2
   (note that there is no minimum discussion period, see 6.3(1))
   and A.3.
 * A vote according to A.3 and 6.3(3).

I hope that was clear.

What isn't clear is what your message was.  You mustn't take my call
for votes and add your own ballot options to it.  If you believed that
there should be a `no decision' option you should have made this
clearer at an earlier stage so that the member of the TC who writes
the CFV would know to include it.  Failing that, you have to vote FD
on my ballot and/or simultaneously propose your own counterproposal
with a separate vote.

It is definitely wrong to add new options to a ballot after voting has
commenced.  Earlier voters will have cast their ballots using only the
options they were presented with and it makes no sense to try to
count up decisions made from different sets of options.

For the purposes of argument I think the best interpretation of your
message is:

 * The following ballot in response to my Call for Votes:
  [1] Choice F: Further discussion
  [ ] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
  [ ] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo

 * Separately, a proposal, call for votes, and vote, as follows:
  [1] Choice M: Leave the choice up to the maintainers.
  [2] Choice G: Further discussion

 (G and F are identical outcomes of course but I have lettered
  them separately for clarity, since 

Manoj seems to have gone along with your approach but I think that's a
mistake.  In my opinion his mail should be treated as these two
ballots:

 * Ian's CFV:
  [1] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
  [2] Choice F: Further discussion
  [3] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo

 * AJ's CFV:
  [2] Choice G: Further discussion
  [3] Choice M: Leave the choice up to the maintainers.


I therefore conclude that the results were as follows:

 * Ian's CFV:
      Ian, Manoj:   X > F > S
      AJ:           F > *
  X fails to meet its 3:1 supermajority and is dropped due to A.6(3).
  F then wins.

 * AJ's CFV:
      AJ:           M > G
      Manoj:        G > M
  M fails to meet quorum.
  G wins.

This is the same end result as Kurt's message: the TC has failed to
pass any resolution.

This kind of confusion is why there's normally a discussion period but
that didn't seem important in the circumstances in this particular
case, where we'd had one vote already resulting in FD, which was
followed by much discussion but no significant movement by any of the
participants.

But it does suggest that we ought to do formally proposing resolutions
and amendments by writing draft CFVs.  A draft ballot paper would give
dissenters a chance to add their own option, with short or long
explanatory text as needed.

Ian.