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

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

This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:
> Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote
> unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they?

You're the one making the assertion, I think the onus is on you to prove
it.  The discussion so far on this topic has, to my mind, suggested the
opposite reading.  We've seen postings from several people who don't
normally post to -vote (and they've been fairly uniformly in support
of the ideas being proposed, at a glance), which suggests to me that we
have more lurkers than you are assuming.

> > > 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 personally would be happy with a higher number, but 30 is a conservative
first start.  Would you be happier if the suggestion was 4Q or 10Q?

> 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?

Basic math says that in the described two way vote, if an option wins
by 1.5Q, and the vote needs 3Q to be quorate, the number of people who
have voted for the option is 2.25Q, which is more than the proposal.
I don't think this is an argument against the proposal, unless I'm
mistaking what you're talking about.

> What about the other two concerns: the obvious spoiler effect; and
> defending proposals during the discussion period?

The 'obvious' spoiler effect - is that the idea that proposals with no
supporters probably won't make it to a GR?  That's a feature.

Why is defending an option you are proposing a problem, and how is it
worsened by increasing the number of required seconds over the current
situation?  If anything, it seems like increasing the number of required
seconds means an incentive to have a wider discussion before proposing
the GR, which if anything will widen the opportunity to build consensus,
and if consensus can't be reached, make it possible to create a few
compromises that people could live with before pretending we can resolve
our difference in 2 weeks with a vote looming.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: