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

Re: More formal proposals

Richard Braakman writes ("More formal proposals"):
> 1. Manoj's recently proposed amendment
>   If I understand section A.1 of the draft Constitution correctly,
>   Ian Jackson (as proposer of the resolution to adopt the Constitution)
>   has the option of immediately making Manoj's proposal formal.  If he
>   does not do so, the proposal will require 5 seconds to be made formal.
>   I second Manoj's proposal.

I think that Manoj's proposal now has the required 5 seconds.  (I
wasn't counting).  However, given subsequent discussion, I think we
probably have a consensus on the following situation instead of either
my original or Manoj's proposed versions:
  * 2:1 supermajority for overruling the tech. committee
  * 3:1 supermajority for changing the constitution

I've therefore included this in my latest draft, which I have made
formal.  I'd be grateful if Manoj would withdraw his amendment if he
is satisfied with my changes.

The differences between Manoj's amendment and the one I've
incorporated are:

* Manoj's doesn't require a supermajority for overriding the
tech. ctte.  If someone wants to keep alive the idea that no
supermajority should be required to override the tech. committee then
I'd rather draft the required changes (or have a motion based more
closely on my latest draft).

* In my version you don't need K developers to put the tech. ctte's
decision on hold - you just need the resolution to say so.  IMO
technical decisions should not be made in haste.

* Manoj's has an ambiguous sentence in s.6.1(4) where the tech. ctte
overrides an individual developer:
    ... this requires a 3:1 majority *of all the Technical Committee
        members currently seated*
(emphasis for Manoj's added text).  I think this is a rather
ill-thought-out attempt to change the voting rules for such
decisions.  It's not clear to me what the exact effect is intended to
be, but it's probably to count all abstentions as `no's.  I think this
is a bad idea because it doesn't cope with the situation where
technical committee members are unavailable.  2:1 majority for such a
small committee is already quite a strong requirement, IMO.


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

Reply to: