Executive summary:
Q1: is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?
Q2: if the A.3.2 vote, why would you not fix an admittedly flawed
ballot?
to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that the
clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there seems to
be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque@debian.org> said:
>
> > according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.
>
> To what end?
two ends, actually.
one: No does not mean Further Discussion.
two: we have an accepted methodology for doing exactly what we are
doing. we are, without good compelling reason, disregarding it.
> Let us examine the possibilities here.
>
> Of the items on the ballot, 2 are present:
> a) Yes
> b) Further discussion
>
> Now, people who really want to say no have to be satisfied
> with further discussion: it is unlikely that people who wanted to say
> No would actually vote Yes.
i agree with that.
> So, if the Yes sayers win in a landslide; whether or not there
> was a No option on the ballot is immaterial, since it would
> not have changed the outcome.
i agree with that, too.
> In case the Further discussion crowd wins, then we can
> ascertain if the reall outcome would have been "no" rather than
> further discussion; in practice, there would be no difference, since
> I'll make some changes to the GR, and propose a different GR (perhaps
> with the quorum -> minimum threshold of acceptability)
however, if there was a No vote, then you and the rest of the developer
community would know that the voting developers believe that the the
current Constitution is fine, and should be left alone.
a winning Further Discussion would mean (to me, anyway) that We need a
change, but this particular change is flawed/unacceptable in some way.
a winning No vote could make it more difficult to find the appropriate
Seconds for a future revision, since everyone could know that the
community has said ``We like it the way it is.''
this is where i see a distinct difference from No and Further
Discussion.
with only Yes and Further Discussion, we lose the ability to say
``Status Quo is acceptable.''
> Yes, the ballot is flawed, since I did not see that the 3.2
> ballot would be doable
i'm now confused. is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?
so the only reason to not fix it is because of laziness? is there a good
reason to not fix it?
there is no reason to not fix it. if you can say that this is the A.3.1
vote, nothing else need be done, everyone is happy, and we have the
A.3.2 vote in a little bit.
> I guess on this issue I am more interested in getting this
> issue resolved, rather than being a rules lawyer, since I
> do not think the outcome shall be affected.
does a person's opinion _really_ matter when the procedure is spelled out
in the Constitution?
(7.1.3 says that one person's opinion does matter, and that happens to
be the Project Secretary ;)
> If you can show me how the outcome is changed, or the project
> affected detrimentally, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
*) a win by a No vote could make it less likely to gain seconds for a
similar proposition in the future.
*) a failure of the Secretary to follow the regulations laid out in the
Constitution calls into question the integrity and impartiality of
the Secretary.
this is all very easily solvable by clarifying that this vote is the
A.3.1 vote. no other action need be made.
i want to see this thing done, also. let's do it the right way, and
absolve ourselves of appearances of impropriety. that is all i ask.
-john
Attachment:
pgpWKeJgE4vDi.pgp
Description: PGP signature