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

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

Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
[...Wouter Verhelst's counts...]
> Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we
> can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently
> required.  How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good
> evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a "very high" bar.

So provide other evidence, or at least point towards it.  I'm using
what I've got and I can't use what I've not got.

> [...] The _formal_ discussion period
> is limited in length, and IMO quite short.  Far too short in fact to
> actually achieve a real, well considered, consensus in that time.

OK, so this proposal means people would spend more time on each GR.
I feel that's probably a bad consequence.

> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people.
> I'm not sure what you aim to imply there?  Are DDs more like sheep
> than 'people' are or vice versa?

Neither.  Just there are vote discussion posters who are not DDs.

> > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive;
> The justification (or perhaps 'last straw') is the poor quality
> of recent vote options, where many people even had quite some
> difficulty figuring out what the difference between any two
> options were.  [...]

I was amongst those having difficulty, as I noted in

I don't understand how 2Q would necessarily have made it easier,
rather than longer and noisier.

> The exaggeration about how big a change this is seems excessive,
> but I don't think 30 / 1000 is by most normal scales of excess.

What normal scales for seconding?

> > 2. the obvious spoiler effect may exclude consensus options
> > prematurely (interaction of thresholds and Condorcet voting);
> Sorry, but that sentence is just entirely self-contradictory
> and unparseable to me ...  Whatever effect you speak of is
> not 'obvious' to me, and if options _had_ consensus clearly
> there'd be more than 30 people supporting them and they
> wouldn't be excluded ...

Do the different views reduce to: do we believe options should
reach consensus before the start of the SRP?

> [...]  Loaded explanations like "unjustified and excessive"
> only work if you are preaching to the choir.  For the rest of us, that
> will need to be backed up with some justification of your own if we
> are to understand what injustice and excess really concerns you here.

I've been done! The "explanations" are "loaded" because they're not
explanations: they're a summary of concerns, as requested previously.

My limited justification can be found in messages like
but I'd welcome justification of 2Q - instead of simple contradictions
like these.

> > I don't think a 600% increase is a conservative step.
> Fortunately this is just an error in your math :)  Let's see:

It was, but not in that way.  If 5 = 100% then 30 = 600%.

[... *larger* warring factions? ...]
> Well if you really believe that might be a problem, then surely
> you'd be in favour of my actually radical suggestion to raise
> this threshold to something like 80% of people in the keyring?

Not this threshold, but I think I'd second replacing the SRP with
something radical that required a relatively high %age.  I would
prefer any replacement to be time-limited unless there's good reason
to be sure it works better than the current way.

> > Alternatively, would it make the path of least resistance "ignore
> > everyone else whenever possible because they'll never get 30 or 60
> > DDs together"?
> Are you saying that if I ever vote with some faction I will never
> be able to "cross the floor" and vote with a different group of
> people who I agree more with on some totally different topic?

No. I'm suggesting that GRs would become too rare to be a concern for
almost all activities.

[vote options defined by a ballot jury]
> Wait, I'm confused again ...  if you are worried about secret groups
> of 30 people having too much power to influence the project, where
> are we going to get this jury from, and who will watch the watchers?

I'd use a public group selected at random from the keyring, but I'm
not strongly attached to that method.

> [... what goes on in -vote ... not attractive ...]
> should you really be surprised that we'll build our own
> consensus to rise up and stop you from doing that?

Stop *me*?  In 5+ years, I think I've put one amendment on a ballot.
I feel that misdirected personal attacks do more to divide the project
than any number of discussions.

> It's not really rocket science, not once you've seen it once
> or twice before.

So please name the other places you've seen it, to convince everyone.

> [...] I don't want to join the ranks of people
> who just repeat themselves over and over and over in the vain
> hope that this will win people over to their way of thinking.

Instead of repeating oneself, one could try posting evidence and
explaining reasoning, instead of simply making opposite claims and
complaining about other views. :-(

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

Reply to: