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

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
> Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
> its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC

Why are you saying 5 ? Your proposal requires 30.

Recent votes have shown that some options tended to have more
seconds than the others but we never reached 30. We had 17 for
"Exclude source requirements for firmware" and 21 for 
"Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a
new proposal.".

Note that with those new requirements some interesting
amendments/alternate choices would not have made it in several of the votes
(although different rules would have probably lead more people to second).

Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.

It would be also be good to add a sentence inviting the seconders to
explain why they second the proposal. At least it would make the many
formal mails to second proposals somewhat interesting to read
(they could even be linked from the vote web page so that voters who have
not taken part in the discussion can refer to the reasoning of those who
have brought the option to the vote).

> only. I'm *not* calling for seconders with this mail. Thats also the
> reason for the reply-to/mail-followup-to header going to -project,
> please respect them.

List-reply ended on both lists, I had to hand-edit the result.

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: