Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Joerg Jaspert <email@example.com> wrote:
> > In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just
> > to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential
> > options before they have any chance of building consensus and others
> > will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts;
> > also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
> You wont need Q, 2Q, Q^1024 people to start a discussion period.
> This whole thread didnt need a single second to run like it is, usually
> all our flames don't need them.
> Yes, this is not the formal discussion period, but if you fear you wont
> get enough seconds, or might not be sure its the best to do, going the
> way I did with this seems to be ok, and able to draw attention from
There's not a discussion period and a "formal" discussion period.
There's *the* discussion period and a bunch of DDs shooting the breeze
like this. Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?
> Of course I do defend what I want. Yet, I still read and keep in mind
> what others think.
OK, thanks. I hope no-one minds, but it didn't read like that yet.
> > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:-
> > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive;
> I did justify it. "If you cant find 30 people out of 1000 that are in
> the project, why bother 1000 to vote on it?".
Why 30? Why not 130? Why not 300? The particular number is unjustified.
I'm not good at interpreting complex constitutions, but I think a GR
could pass with (3Q/2)+1 votes preferring it to Further Discussion.
Requiring more seconds than votes in support seems a bit unusual, to
put it mildly. Is there any other voting system that has that?
> > 3. it favours organised campaign groups who gather in secret before
> > springing discussion on debian lists;
> Umm. If you think so.
I do, based on what I've seen of other groups. Raising the number of
required seconds too high would give a strong incentive for something
like political parties to form within the debian project (you support
my manifesto and I'll support yours - that sort of thing) and I think
that could cause *really* harmful divisions.
What about the other two concerns: the obvious spoiler effect; and
defending proposals during the discussion period?
> > I'd welcome other examples, particularly if the minimum is equivalent
> > to anything like the 30 or 60 in the original proposal.
> Which 60? Its 30 (2Q) or its 15 (Q) what seems to be wanted.
I assumed that where 2K is currently (18.104.22.168), it would become 4Q
(because K becomes 2Q in general, and Q only for the number of
sponsors of Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL). I see
that's not at all clear in the proposal - sorry for my confusion.
Could you please repost
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/12/msg00503.html as a proper
patch to the constitution (wdiff or whatever), to avoid this sort of
> So you think if something is clearly found to be a mistake at some
> point, the DDs wouldnt be able to admit it and revert it? It *only*
> takes 30 people to start that.
I think that:-
*if* requiring 30 seconds is a mistake in general
*then* requiring 30 seconds to revert it is also a mistake.
Could we have a limited-time trial first? Because:-
*if* requiring 30 seconds works well
*then* requiring 30 seconds to make it permanent won't be a problem.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct