Re: Automation of constitutional procedures
> This is precisely the aspect I disagree with. There are a number of
> problems with this kind of thing.
>
> Firstly, with an automated system developers' abilities to do things
> will be dependent on the bot's interpretation of what is allowed - the
> bot becomes the governor of the procedure rather than the Secretary or
> the developers together.
>
How so? As I've stated a number of times only certain things will be
done through they system. The secretary can and should (and will have
time to since they don't have to deal with silly things like keeping
track of seconders) take care of everything else. The secretary is
always the final arbiter and can easily change anything they want to.
In fact, in mail with the secretary, they said that they were thinking
of doing something very much like this.
> Secondly, it is often necessary in procedures such as this to make
> `conformal changes' to a document or an amendment to ensure the
> consistency of the whole document. Since a bot cannot tell what is
> merely a conformal change and what is a substantive change this will
> become impossible, and a human will have to step in anyway to ensure
> that what gets voted on makes sense.
>
What's stopping people from doing this? When you make changes to the
constitution you post a new version. I'm not suggesting anything different.
All discussion leading up to that change was held on a public list.
Still no different.
> Thirdly, with a reasonably complicated procedure like the one in the
> proposed constitution it will be necessary to make it as easy and
> informal as possible for people to take actions like proposing and
> seconding resolutions, amendments, &c.
>
Exactly. Ok, it's not as informal when you wish to second or make an
amendment, but it is still quite easy.
> Fourthly, I don't think developers should be required to learn how to
> drive such a mechanism before being able to take part in the
> decisionmaking process.
>
Remember, it is only if they wish to second or to be a proposer that
they need to use it at all.
A comparison with the bug tracking system is fair. Are you suggesting
that it is too complicated for developers to use? Take a look at the web
page and you'll see it works along very similar lines. In fact it is
easier than the bug system since all discussion takes place in a single
place (or on multiple lists, as the case may be).
Also, you seem to be ignoring some issues. Developers should at any time
be able to tell what the current proposals are, who the seconders are and
what the current version is. Every time someone wants to find the latest
version of the constitution they must search through old mail to find the
URL. This will be standardized under such a system.
Doing everything by hand is also too dependent on the secretary dealing
with issues daily. Can you tell me who the seconders were for the constitution?
Sure, as leader you don't need any, but that's not the point. Why don't
we get some feedback from the secretary on this.
You seem to be turning this into something out of Brave New World.
Look at http:/www.easynet.on.ca/~treacy/
Jay Treacy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: