[I'm considering only issues of intelligability/readability here. I
stipulate that, given basic understanding of math and logic, the
constitution should be self-contained.]
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:18:23AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Under 4.2 Procedure [for developers during a general resolution or
> election], change item 3 to read:
>
> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
> results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
> vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting
> period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
> Project Leader, and may be ended by the Project Secretary when
> enough voters have voted that even if every remaining voter
> voted in opposition to the winner the outcome would remain the
> same. In this context, we ignore the possibility that people
> might want to change their vote.
This reads poorly. Why not simply use the current phrasing "when the
outcome is no longer in doubt"?
> Under A.2 Calling for a vote, change item 2 to read
>
> 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
> resolution and all related amendments.
I think that item 4. needs to be similarly reworded, eliminating the
clause "or the last related formal amendment was accepted if an
amendment is being voted on".
> A.3. Voting procedure
>
> 1. Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a
> single ballot, that includes an option for the original
> resolution, each amendment, and, where applicable, the default
> option.
There aren't necessarily any amendments, so I'd write it without the
weak implication that "each amendment" is always applicable.
1. Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a
single ballot, that includes an option for the original
resolution, each amendment, and the default option (where
applicable).
> 2. The default option must not have any supermajority requirements.
> Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
> have a 1:1 majority requirement.
A footnote/citation here which explains "supermajority" would seem
sensible. (I know these don't form a formal part of the constitution,
but people still need to understand the draft/proposal).
"For example, a 2:1 supermajority means that the number of people
voting in favour of this proposal must be at least twice the number
who vote against it."
Can anybody improve on that description?
> Replace A.6 with:
>
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the winner
> is chosen from the options in the Schwartz set. If there is
> only one such option, it is the winner. If there are multiple
> options, the elector with a casting vote chooses which of those
> options wins.
It is possible to have an election where there is no casting vote. For
example, electing the chairman of the Technical Committee when the
current chairman is AWOL, or likewise with the DPL. What happens then?
I also express support for Jochen Voss's suggestions on the
modifications to appendix A.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpWrUcQioMSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature