Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> writes:
Wichert> Your first and second point seem to be basically the same: you
Wichert> think the current method is not visible enough. There are currently
Wichert> no rules or guidelines that state how exactly proposals, seconds
Wichert> and cfv's should be made.
Wichert> Can you think of a set of simple guidelines for this? Most people
Wichert> so far seem to want us to spam every possible debian list with
Wichert> this information, but I feel that is a very bad solution.
a) All general resolutions must start with an announcement to
debian-devel-announce and debian-devel, with foolow ups
redirected to -devel.
b) The announcement should be generally labeled as being general
resolutions, including, but not limited to, a subject tag, like
Subject: [GENERAL RESOLUTION] ...
c) The call for votes should be submitted to -devel and -vote, after
the discussion period is over and a final form of the resolution
is available, along with any amendments, etc, which have recieved
adequate number of seconds.
d) The call for votes should contain the full text of the proposed
resolution and amendments, along with the names of the proposer
The following are just proposals
e) We may create a virtual package so that we can use the BTS to
track the progress and status of the all current resolutions. The
initial proposal, any amendments, and the final form and ballot
should all be CC'd to the bug report (the intervening discussions
need not be).
f) Mandate a pre prosal, or require that there have been a period of
discussion prior to calling for a general resolution. Include a
rationale in the initial proposal that details when the
discussions were held, and why we think a resolution is required
>> Thirdly, I wouldrather we not turn everything automatically
>> into a general resolution from the word go. Set up a floater, or
>> something, and let people chew it out a bit.
Wichert> It hasn't been possible for long now to use general
Wichert> resolutions, I think we need some more experience with them
Wichert> to see for what they are fit and what can better be decided
Wichert> using other means.
By all means, let us get experience. But technical issues are
rarely a matter of opinion, and should not be decided by popularity,
and thus we already know there are limitations on what can be decided
by this method.
I think it is reasonable not to put everything under the sun
as a general resolution. We already have a means of creating
non-controversial policy without the onerous general resolution
Two US legilatures came close to deciding that the value of PI
should be exactly 3.14, by majority vote. I just present that
as anecdotal argument that the majority is not always right
All I wasnted was a modicum of restraint in invoking this
shiny new tool. I think the resolution protocol should not be invoked
unless it is know that there is little consensus, but there may be a
broad support for the proposal, and that at least some people think
that this is a subject that can and should be decided by majority
vote, and thus override the minority view totally.
The morning sun when it's in your face really shows your age, But
that don't bother me none; in my eyes you're everything. I know I
keep you amused, But I feel I'm being used. Oh, Maggie, I wish I'd
never seen your face. You took me away from home, Just to save you
from being alone; You stole my heart, and that's what really hurts.
I suppose I could collect my books and get on back to school, Or
steal my daddy's cue and make a living out of playing pool, Or find
myself a rock 'n' roll band, That needs a helping hand, Oh, Maggie I
wish I'd never seen your face. You made a first-class fool out of
me, But I'm as blind as a fool can be. You stole my soul, and that's
a pain I can do without. Rod Stewart, "Maggie May"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E