Proposed constitution - final version (0.8)
The final version of the proposed constitution is now at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.8.html
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-formal.html
(all these files are the same).
The text is reproduced below. I therefore hereby formally propose and
accept an amendment to my earlier motion and draft. The motion now
reads as shown below.
I hope that no further amendments will be necessary. If not then I'll
get the SPI board to vote on the undertakings in s9, and we'll be
voting on the proposed constitution in about two weeks.
I have offered places on the Technical Committee to (and have had them
accepted by):
Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu>
Klee Dienes <klee@alum.mit.edu>
Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>
Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
I had offered one to Christian Schwarz, who has now left,
unfortunately. Based on various comments I'd like to offer the
remaining position to Manoj Srivastava - I'll be mailing Manoj and the
proposed committee shortly.
Changes since the last formal version are:
* Technical Committee Chairman has a normal vote on the Technical
Committee as well as a casting vote. (And therefore adjusted quorum
rule and rule about voting in ballots about overriding oneself). The
consensus seems to be that the Tech. Ctte. Chairman should get a
normal vote too (and this seems to avoid the situation where people
would like not to be Chairman because it's a hobbled post).
* Project Leader has a normal vote in Developer votes as well as a
casting vote.
* Stated that the Project Secretary determines the number and identity
of the developers where required by the constitution.
* `specific nontechnical' qualification of things not covered by the
constitution removed from the scope paragraph.
* Explicit provision for resignation from posts or the Project.
* Clarified the distinction between formal opinions of the Technical
Committee and informal comments by its members.
* Some formatting improvements.
* Consistent capitalisation of Developer.
Ian.
The motion:
That the Project adopt the constitution below in place of its
previous arrangements. The Project Leader will initially appoint
the Secretary and the Technical Committee.
Proposed constitution for the Debian Project (v0.8)
1. Introduction
_The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
common cause to create a free operating system._
This document describes the organisational structure for formal
decisionmaking in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
Project or how it achieves them, or contain any policies except those
directly related to the decisionmaking process.
2. Decisionmaking bodies and individuals
Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the following:
1. The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
2. The Project Leader;
3. The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman;
4. The individual Developer working on a particular task;
5. Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks.
6. The Project Secretary;
Most of the remainder of this document will outline the powers of
these bodies, their composition and appointment, and the procedure for
their decisionmaking. The powers of a person or body may be subject to
review and/or limitation by others; in this case the reviewing body or
person's entry will state this. _In the list above, a person or body
is usually listed before any people or bodies whose decisions they can
overrule or who they (help) appoint - but not everyone listed earlier
can overrule everyone listed later._
2.1. General rules
1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task
which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do
it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and
decisions properly made under them.
2. A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader,
Project Secretary and the Chairman of the Technical Committee must
be distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as
their own Delegate.
3. A person may leave the Project or resign from a particular post
they hold, at any time, by stating so publicly.
3. Individual Developers
3.1. Powers
An individual Developer may
1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their
own work;
2. propose or second draft General Resolutions;
3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections;
4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections.
3.2. Composition and appointment
1. Developers are volunteers who agree to further the aims of the
Project insofar as they participate in it, and who maintain
package(s) for the Project or do other work which the Project
Leader's Delegate(s) consider worthwhile.
2. The Project Leader's Delegate(s) may choose not to admit new
Developers, or expel existing Developers. _If the Developers feel
that the Delegates are abusing their authority they can of course
override the decision by way of General Resolution - see s.4.1(3),
s.4.2._
3.3. Procedure
Developers may make these decisions as they see fit.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
software must meet.
They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
4.2. Procedure
1. The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
and seconded by at least K other Developers, or if proposed by the
Project Leader or the Technical Committee.
2. Delaying a decision by the Project Leader or their Delegate:
1. If the Project Leader or their Delegate, or the Technical
Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override
them by passing a resolution to do so; see s4.1(3).
2. If such a resolution is seconded by at least 2K Developers,
or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the
resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided
that resolution itself says so).
3. If the original decision was to change a discussion period or
a voting period, or the resolution is to override the
Technical Committee, then only K Developers need to second
the resolution to be able to put the decision immediately on
hold.
4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote
on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the
original decision will be be delayed until then. There is no
quorum for this immediate procedural vote.
5. If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the
original decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer
conducted.
3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies
results are not be revealed during the voting period; after the
vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting
period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
Project Leader, and may be ended by the Project Secretary when the
outcome of a vote is no longer in doubt.
4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
5. Proposals, seconds, amendments, calls for votes and other formal
actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic
mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any
Developer may post there.
6. Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. The
Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change their
votes.
7. Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
K is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not be
integers and are not rounded.
5. Project Leader
5.1. Powers
The Project Leader may:
1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical
Committee.
The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a
specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the
Technical Committee.
Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may
withdraw an ongoing delegation of particular area of
responsibility.
2. Lend authority to other Developers.
The Project Leader may make statements of support for points of
view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise;
these statements have force if and only if the Leader would be
empowered to make the decision in question.
3. Make any decision which requires urgent action.
This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually
urgent through lack of relevant action, unless there is a fixed
deadline.
4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.
5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.
6. Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the
Committee. (See s.6.2.)
7. Use a casting vote when Developers vote.
The Project Leader also has a normal vote in such ballots.
8. Vary the discussion period for Developers' votes (as above).
9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
The Project Leader should attempt to participate in discussions
amongst the Developers in a helpful way which seeks to bring the
discussion to bear on the key issues at hand. The Project Leader
should not use the Leadership position to promote their own
personal views.
10. Together with SPI, make decisions affecting property held in trust
for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.)
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes
vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the following three weeks any Developer may nominate
themselves as a candidate Project Leader.
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning (to make their
identities and positions known). If there are no candidates at the
end of the nomination period then the nomination period is
extended for three further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next three weeks are the polling period during which
Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are
kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using Concorde Vote Counting. The quorum
is the same as for a General Resolution (s.4.2) and the default
option is None Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
5.3. Procedure
The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
Where practical the Project Leader should informally solicit the views
of the Developers.
The Project Leader should avoid overemphasizing their own point of
view when making decisions in their capacity as Leader.
6. Technical committee
6.1. Powers
The Technical Committee may:
1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals,
developers' reference materials, example packages and the
behaviour of non-experimental package building tools. (In each
case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
documentation makes decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).)
2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions
overlap.
In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical
policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the
priorities of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a
command name, or about which package is responsible for a bug that
both maintainers agree is a bug, or about who should be the
maintainer for a package) the technical committee may decide the
matter.
3. Make a decision when asked to do so.
Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the
Technical Committee, or seek advice from it.
4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
implemented.
5. Offer advice.
The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its
views on any matter. _Individual members may of course make
informal statements about their views and about the likely views
of the committee._
6. Together with the Project Leader, appoint new members to itself or
remove existing members. (See s.6.2.)
7. Appoint the Chairman of the Technical Committee.
The Chairman is elected by the Committee from its members. All
members of the committee are automatically nominated; the
committee vote starting one week before the post will become
vacant (or immediately, if it is already too late). The members
may vote by public acclamation for any fellow committee member,
including themselves; there is no None Of The Above option. The
vote finishes when all the members have voted or when the outcome
is no longer in doubt. The result is determined according to
Concorde Vote Counting.
8. The Chairman can stand in for the Leader, together with the
Secretary
As detailed in s.7.1(2), the Chairman of the Technical Committee
and the Project Secretary may together stand in for the Leader if
there is no Leader.
6.2. Composition
1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
usually have at least 4 members.
2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose
(individually) to appoint them or not.
3. When there are 5 members or fewer the Technical Committee may
appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6.
4. When there have been 5 members or fewer for at least one week the
Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of
members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per
appointment.
5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
6.3. Procedure
1. The Technical Committee uses the Standard Resolution Procedure.
A draft resolution or amendment may be proposed by any member of
the Technical Committee. There is no minimum discussion period;
the voting period lasts for up to one week, or until the outcome
is no longer in doubt. Members may change their votes. There is a
quorum of two.
2. Details regarding voting
The Chairman has a casting vote. When the Technical Committee
votes whether to override a Developer who also happens to be a
member of the Committee, that member may not vote (unless they are
the Chairman, in which case they may use only their casting vote).
3. Public discussion and decisionmaking.
Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members
of the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee
public discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the
Committee.
4. Confidentiality of appointments.
The Technical Committee may hold confidential discussions via
private email or a private mailing list or other means to discuss
appointments to the Committee. However, votes on appointments must
be public.
5. No detailed design work.
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
and policies. Such design work should be carried out by
individuals privately or together and discussed in ordinary
technical policy and design forums.
The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
_Individual members of the technical committee may of course
participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy
work._
6. Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.
The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until
efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed,
unless it has been asked to make a decision by the person or body
who would normally be responsible for it.
7. The Project Secretary
7.1. Powers
The Secretary:
1. Takes votes amongst the Developers, and determines the number and
identity of Developers, whenever this is required by the
constitution.
2. Can stand in for the Leader, together with the Chairman of the
Technical Committee.
If there is no Project Leader then the Chairman of the Technical
Committee and the Project Secretary may by joint agreement make
decisions if they consider it imperative to do so.
3. Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.
4. May delegate part or all of their authority to someone else, or
withdraw such a delegation at any time.
7.2. Appointment
The Project Secretary is appointed by the Project Leader and the
current Project Secretary.
If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree
on a new appointment they must ask the board of SPI to appoint a
Secretary.
If there is no Project Secretary or the current Secretary is
unavailable and has not delegated authority for a decision then the
decision may be made or delegated by the Chairman of the Technical
Committee, as Acting Secretary.
The Project Secretary's term of office is 1 year, at which point they
or another Secretary must be (re)appointed.
7.3. Procedure
The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
Developers.
When acting together to stand in for an absent Project Leader the
Chairman of the Technical Committee and the Project Secretary should
make decisions only when absolutely necessary and only when consistent
with the consensus of the Developers.
8. The Project Leader's Delegates
8.1. Powers
The Project Leader's Delegates:
1. have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;
2. may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly,
including approving or expelling Developers or designating people
as Developers who do not maintain packages. _This is to avoid
concentration of power, particularly over membership as a
Developer, in the hands of the Project Leader. _
8.2. Appointment
The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced
by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not
make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by
the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once
made.
8.3. Procedure
Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
9. Software in the Public Interest
SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals. Debian
is grateful for the legal support framework offered by SPI. _Debian's
Developers are currently members of SPI by virtue of their status as
Developers. _
9.1. Authority
1. SPI has no authority regarding Debian's technical or nontechnical
decisions, except that no decision by Debian with respect to any
property held by SPI shall require SPI to act outside its legal
authority, and that Debian's constitution may occasionally use SPI
as a decision body of last resort.
2. Debian claims no authority over SPI other than that over the use
of certain of SPI's property, as described below, though Debian
Developers may be granted authority within SPI by SPI's rules.
3. Debian Developers are not agents or employees of SPI, or of each
other or of persons in authority in the Debian Project. A person
acting as a Developer does so as an individual, on their own
behalf.
9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any donations
for the Debian Project must made to SPI, which manages such affairs.
SPI have made the following undertakings:
1. SPI will hold money, trademarks and other tangible and intangible
property and manage other affairs for purposes related to Debian.
2. Such property will be accounted for separately and held in trust
for those purposes, decided on by Debian and SPI according to this
section.
3. SPI will not dispose of or use property held in trust for Debian
without approval from Debian, which may be granted by the Project
Leader or by General Resolution of the Developers.
4. SPI will consider using or disposing of property held in trust for
Debian when asked to do so by the Project Leader.
5. SPI will use or dispose of property held in trust for Debian when
asked to do so by a General Resolution of the Developers, provided
that this is compatible with SPI's legal authority.
6. SPI will notify the Developers by electronic mail to a Debian
Project mailing list when it uses or disposes of property held in
trust for Debian.
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
These rules apply to communal decisionmaking by committees and
plebiscites, where stated above.
A.1. Proposal
The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
seconded, as required.
A.1. Discussion and Amendment
1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed.
Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and seconded
according to the requirements for a new resolution, or directly by
the proposer of the original resolution.
2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer,
in which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed
to match.
3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the seconders of
the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
will be voted on.
4. If an amendment accepted by the original proposer is not to the
liking of others, they may propose another amendment to reverse
the earlier change (again, they must meet the requirements for
proposer and seconder(s).)
5. The proposer or a resolution may suggest changes to the wordings
of amendments; these take effect if the proposer of the amendment
agrees and none of the seconders object. In this case the changed
amendments will be voted on instead of the originals.
A.2. Calling for a vote
1. The proposer of a motion or an amendment may call for a vote,
providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has elapsed.
2. The proposer of a motion may call for a vote on any or all of the
amendments individually or together; the proposer of an amendment
may call for a vote only on that amendment and related amendments.
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final
decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(6).
4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last
formal amendment was accepted, or the last related formal
amendment was accepted if an amendment is being voted on, or since
the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been
proposed and accepted.
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
quorum is required for an amendment.
2. When the final form of the resolution has been determined it is
voted on in a final ballot, in which the options are Yes, No and
Further Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire
procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period.
3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
by public pronouncement) may arrange for these ballots to be held
simultaneously, even (for example) using a single voting message.
If amendment ballot(s) and the final ballot are combined in this
way then it must be possible for a voter to vote differently in
the final ballot for each of the possible forms of the final draft
resolution.
4. Votes may be cast during the voting period, as specified
elsewhere. If the voting period can end if the outcome is no
longer in doubt, the possibility that voters may change their
votes is not considered.
5. The votes are counted according to the Concorde Vote Counting. If
a quorum is required then the default option is Further
Discussion.
6. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
procedure (for example, whether particular amendments should be
considered independent or not).
A.4. Withdrawing resolutions or unaccepted amendments
The proposer of a resolution or unaccepted amendment may withdraw it.
In this case new proposers may come forward keep it alive, in which
case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and any others
become seconders if they aren't seconders already.
A seconder of a resolution or amendment (unless it has been accepted)
may withdraw.
If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or seconders means that a
resolution has no proposer or not enough seconders it will not be
voted on unless this is rectified before the resolution expires.
A.5. Expiry
If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks then it is considered to have been
withdrawn.
A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
3. All options which are Dominated by at least one other option are
discarded, and references to them in ballot papers will be
ignored.
4. If there is any option which Dominates all others then that is the
winner.
5. If there is now more than one option remaining Single
Transferrable Vote will be applied to choose amongst those
remaining:
+ The number of first preferences for each option is counted,
and if any option has more than half it is the winner.
+ Otherwise the option with the lowest number of first
preferences is eliminated and its votes redistributed
according to the second preferences.
+ This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot
papers to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until
one option gets more than half of the `first' preferences.
6. In the case of ties the elector with a casting vote will decide.
The casting vote does not count as a normal vote; however that
elector will usually also get a normal vote.
7. If a supermajority is required the number of Yes votes in the
final ballot is reduced by an appropriate factor. Strictly
speaking, for a supermajority of F:A, the number of ballots which
prefer Yes to X (when considering whether Yes Dominates X or X
Dominates Yes) or the number of ballots whose first (remaining)
preference is Yes (when doing STV comparisons for winner and
elimination purposes) is multiplied by a factor A/F before the
comparison is done. _This means that a 2:1 vote, for example,
means twice as many people voted for as against; abstentions are
not counted. _
8. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
_When the Standard Resolution Procedure is to be used, the text which
refers to it must specify what is sufficient to have a draft
resolution proposed and/or seconded, what the minimum discussion
period is, and what the voting period is. It must also specify any
supermajority and/or the quorum (and default option) to be used._
B. Use of language and typography
The present indicative (`is', for example) means that the statement is
a rule in this constitution. `May' or `can' indicates that the person
or body has discretion. `Should' means that it would be considered a
good thing if the sentence were obeyed, but it is not binding. _Text
marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
cases of doubt. _
--
Ian Jackson, at home. Local/personal: ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk
ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: