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

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

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote: [...]
> Well, I disagree on that point. I just had a look at the vote.debian.org
> pages, checking those votes where the number of seconds exceeded 10, and
> found only the following ones:

I add the outcomes to the start of the line:-

Proposal F chosen > - Proposal F on the last vote; 17 seconds
Proposal A chosen > - Proposal A on 2008_002 (membership); 21 seconds
Proposal A chosen > - Proposal A on 2007_004 (length DPL election); 20 seconds
Amendment A chosen > - Amendment A on 2006_001 (GFDL); 15 seconds
Proposal B chosen > - Proposal E on 2004_004 (sarge release after 2004_003): 16 seconds
Amendment chosen > - Amendment on 2004_002 (status of non-free): 12 seconds

So, in one case, the outcome was different to the most-seconded option.

> Now I do realize and agree that many people will probably not second
> something anymore once a sufficient number of seconds has been issued;
> but I think that, all things considered, 30 may be too much.

Yes and more generally: I think there are obviously some interactions
between being the first proposal, the number of seconds gathered, the
voting preferences (and so the outcome) and the current required
number of seconds.  It's this last element which makes this analysis
so unreliable, but the others play a part.

> [...] However, raising the bar sixfold in one go is pushing it, IMO.

I agree.  There seems little rationale to support it.  The more I've
looked, the more places I've not found evidence for such a large
seconding requirement and I know a few anecdotes about raising numbers
too high and accidentally killing an organisation...  Was 30 proposed
as a "let's propose something extreme and see if we can get something
less-but-sufficient-to-kill-nearly-all-GRs through" vanguard?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: