Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> in light of the painful firmware GR this year, I think that the
> following ideas can help to avoid such a situation to happen again.
> - Restrict the use of 3:1 supermajority to GRs proposing changes of
> our fundation documents.
This restriction would not address the perceived problems with the
gr_lenny_firmware ballot. Recall that “changes to the foundation
documents” was the very justification for why the 3:1 supermajority
requirements were applied as they were.
What it seems is that some people (including you?) disagree with some
others on *what* constitutes a change to foundation documents. That
seems to be the point that needs better clarification.
> - Ask the GR proposer to take part of the work load, for instance by
> gathering and counting the PGP-signed secondings and writing the
> vote.debian.org page.
I like this idea for its “share the load” effect, but I can see a
change in conflict of interest if the person who proposes the GR also
gets to write up the formal vote document.
\ “I installed a skylight in my apartment. The people who live |
`\ above me are furious!” —Steven Wright |