Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> >> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
> >> a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> > not sure if we need floor(2Q) here, but at least floor(Q).
> It is 2Q as I do want a seperation to the one in b) (to stop a
> delegate/DPL/the TC). And I dislike going below Q for any option, so b)
> has the lower, Q, and a is 2Q.
> Besides, its only 30 people with floor(2Q)...
I'd find 1.5Q more palatable.
30 people is not much when you compare it with 1000. But the ammount of
people that are interested enough in Debian processes to actually notice
there is something they would like to "second" is a lot less...
In fact, while I find floor(1.5Q) acceptable, I'd rather have it at
> > d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already frozen,
> > the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined in a).
> While I dislike the GR we just had so short before release I don't think
> making a special case for a release is good. If it is I want a special
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot