[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)

This looks great Ian!

Of course, I do have some comments ;-)

There are about 4 major issues I would like to speak to, none of which
would change my vote for the document (I'm for it if that wasn't clear),
yet need to be thought about.

First of all, if the "Board of Directors" had produced this document the
relationship between Debian and SPI would have worked out much different,
and the sections in the constitution defining their relationship would be
unnecessary. (I'm not sure it is a good idea to constitutionalize our
relationship in any case. A renewable contract would have been much more
desirable...water under the bridge)

In any case, I am sorry that this relationship between Debian and SPI
needs to be addressed here at all :-(

Asside from this, the only missing information that I think should be
explicit comes in section 4.2.3 under Proceedures. One of the options for
ending the vote by the secretary, is "... when the outcome of the vote is
no longer in question."

Now it seems quite clear to me that if there are 200 voters and a 2:1 vote
is required for the proposal, when 134 votes have been cast either in
favor, or in opposition, that the requirement has been met and the vote
can be stopped. (this assumes that no one is going to change their vote)

What is not clear is what the constitution thinks "no longer in question"
actually means.

The rest of what I have to say is relatively unimportant (at least to me)
so I will start with the most interesting ;-)

Section 6 (and elsewhere) talks about the "Technical Commitee". Can I
assume that we don't currently have one of those? If I understand the
constitution, this means that Ian will have to appoint 5 members, and
those 5 members will have a week to appoint a 6th member? I saw no
criterion for deciding whether extra committee members were needed for the
extra 2 possible seats. Am I just missing something here?

Section 8.2 on Delegate Appointment looks like it could be a real can of
worms. There seems to be an inate contradiction in this section. First it
says that the Project leader may replace a Delegate, but then later says
that the PL can not make appointment contingent on the deligates
decisions. It could be argued then, that the PL can not dismiss a delegate
based on the performance (decisions made) of that delegate! What other
criterion would be more appropriate? Even sloth is a decision (except for
the species so named, of course ;-) made by the delegate.

And finally, (yes, I'm almost out of things to say ;-) Section A.5.8 seems
to make the idea of a Quorum recursive. It does this by first requiring
that a quorum be present for a vote, and then expanding the requirement by
requiring that same number of votes for the proposal in order that it
pass. This is basically a redefinition of what constitutes a quorum in
this case. It seems overly complex, as all you have to do is the
appropriate math and propose that for these classes of vote a quorum is
constituted of X*Q where X is the recomputed fudge factor.

Another way to interrpret this clause is that the only way a quorum can
pass anything is by uncontested vote.

Having taken all this time to bend your ear, I beg you hang on for just a
bit longer.

Ian, you have my profound thanks for this document! If this had been
presented to the BOD, I certainly would have voted for it way back then.
While the boards failure was complete, SPI has done very little to
accomplish this particular milestone either (it appears that all the
incopropration work will only benefit SPI). Your efforts in getting this
document into a working form are truely heroic, and I can't say enought to
compliment you for giving us this constitution!

I suppose, that under the current opperating proceedures (that is the
draft constitution...right?), you should consider this the most longwinded
second in the history of the project.

I formally second the proposal that the draft constitution be used as the
current working proceedures for adopting said draft constitution.

I should also be considered as a second to any proposal to adopt the draft
constitution as it stands.

Waiting is,

Still sigless

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: