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

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

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> > do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> > you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> > only means "I want to see this voted on", not "I support this
> > statement", and I think that's a good thing.
> I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot
> purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our
> voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs
> support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not
> help that process.

Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this.  Having options on the
ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve
conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the wider
DD population, rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame
the self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote.

Even if the number of seconds for a proposal is raised to something
massive like 2Q, would it be worth keeping the number of seconds for a
partial amendment at K?  If we're going to have the trouble of votes,
we might as well vote as comprehensively as possible...

(To do this, I'd probably add to the end of A.1.2 "A partial amendment
is one which changes only one point of the resolution." and add to
4.2.1 after "other Developers," the words "or if it is a partial
amendment sponsored by at least K other Developers," and keep K

I'd also support voting on groups of conflicting proper amendments
*before* voting on the full resolution options, as happens in
councils, many business boards and so on.  The aim is to have the most
consensual of each of the necessarily alternative options in the main
vote.  The cost is a more complicated voting procedure, as far as I
can see.

(To do this, I'd probably replace "single ballot that" in A.3.1 with
"up to two ballots.  If there are any partial amendments, a
preliminary ballot includes a vote for each point of the original
resolution and each non-partial amendment and with each vote having
options for the original text and for each partial amendment to that
point.  The final ballot" and replace ", each amendment" with " (as
amended by any preliminary ballot), each non-partial amendment (as
amended by any preliminary ballot)".  I'd love a simpler solution if
anyone knows one.)

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

Reply to: