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

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

>> 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.

Oh well. Imagine I wrote 30 there. :)

> 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.".

We never reached 30 as it wasn't neccessary, so people did not second an
option after it got lots of seconders already.

> 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).

If they had been so interesting they sure would have reached 30
seconders, no?

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

See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.

> 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).

As a must or as a should? A should would probably work.

bye, Joerg
<Getty> meebey: Ich kanns Dir remote machen;)
<Getty> oh mann... erst denken dann schreiben

Reply to: