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

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>>>> The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second,
>>>>> on the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were
>>>>> accepted, a call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks
>>>>> after that (from the 26th of January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4).
>>> 4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been
>>> varied) A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the
>>> time
>>> (a) the last formal amendment was accepted
>> Adeodato's new proposal was formally accepted yesterday.
> According to the usage in the constitution, it was made formal
> yesterday, by receiving enough seconds. The term "formal" in
> relation to GRs is used only in A.1 and A.2(4).

> A.1(1) indicates an amendment can be made formal simply by being
> proposed and sponsored; or directly by the original proposer. This
> has happened for Adeodato's amendment, making it a formal amendment.
        A.1 is talking about acceptance by the proposer, which I

> A.1(2) indicates "accepted" amendments are distinct from "formal
> amendments" by providing a means for an amendment that is already
> formal to become accepted. A.1(3) provides the other branch of that,
> by indicating what should happen when "a formal amendment is not
> accepted".

> The only uses of the term "accepted" are in A.1(2,3,4), A.2(4), and
> A.4; A.1(2) and A.1(4) talk specifically about being "accepted by
> the original proposer", and A.1(3) also talks about the "acceptance
> by the proposer". A.4 talks primarily about "unaccepted" amendments,
> which already have sponsors and which may be "kept alive" should the
> proposer withdraw the amendment, or should any sponsors withdraw
> their sponsorship.
> That leaves A.2(4) which spells out that the amendments it talks
> about must both be "formal" and "accepted", and "proposed and
> accepted".

>> I think your error is in interpretng the accepted to imply the
>> original GR propoer accepting the amendment, I see it as an
>> amendment being accepted as an alternate on the ballot.
> I don't believe there's an error in the above -- it's a consistent
> reading of the terms used in the constitution. The alternative
> reading you propose means that "accepted" means one thing in three
> paragraphs immediately preceeding the section we're talking about,
> and a paragraph shortly after it; but something completely different
> -- and redundant, given the formality is already specified -- in the
> one we're looking at.

        Such is my interpretation of the intent of the discussion
 period, yes.

>> If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
>> time to discuss it. 
> Certainly; and there has been. Adeodato's update is a change of
> wording the reasons for which have already been discussed in depth
> over the past few weeks.

        The reasons for the change have been discussed, the
 ramifications of the new working have not. I certainly think I would
 welcome arguments from either side of this new option on the ballot.

> In any event, the secretary does have absolute discretion in
> delaying running the vote after the call for vote comes out, so if
> you feel it's appropriate you can delay it for two weeks or two
> months anyway. But that's a different thing to saying that the
> minimum discussion period /requires/ the vote to be delayed an
> additional two weeks.

        Err, I am saying that. This is not a new interpretation; I
 have always maintained, often in public, that the DOS effect of
 rejected amendments can delay a vote indefinitely, and that the
 secretary must then step in and stop that.

> Beyond the "six people can delay a vote indefinitely" consideration,
> it also introduces a different problem; namely that delaying the
> call for a vote so someone working on amendment can tidy it up
> becomes a bad tradeoff for the initial proposer -- I could've gotten
> the CFV out three weeks earlier than you're suggesting if I'd
> ignored Adeodato's desire to improve his amendment (and avoid the
> 3:1 requirement) by calling for a vote at the start of the week.

        Anton's proposal had already reset the discussion period.

>> Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
>> novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
>> seems ... odd.
> Even if the vote were automated and had started immediately, there's
> still two weeks in which people can discuss the issue and change
> their vote. And this topic's been under discussion for years
> already, and this GR itself has already in discussion for over a
> month; more discussion isn't what we need here.

        In general, and this case in particular, a two week delay for
 discussion on a topic where every day produces several emails is not
 a bad idea -- specially now a new option is also on the table.

>>> So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006
>>> 09:59:20 +0000, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was
>>> posted 1st January, we've already been discussing this for six
>>> weeks, so I don't think there's any need for another two weeks on
>>> this.

>> 	Adeodato's new proposal has not had any discussion that I can
>> see. I would be interested in the thoughts of people who sponsored
>> the opriginal GR on why the original deserves to be voted above
>> adeodato's proposal.

> As one of the sponsors, you can satisfy that desire yourself as well
> as anyone else can :)

        I try to minimize my participation as a party to one of my
 sponsored amendments. I know why I feel that way, but that does not
 mean others do.

>>>> Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a
>>>> proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period.
>>> That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases
>>> without the discussion period restarting.
>> I think distinct options on a ballot count as independent
>> proposals for related issues.
> That's utterly absurd: the proposals are directly contradictory;
> they're not even remotely "independent". Besides which they were all
> proposed as amendments.

        Right. A pedantry, but noone really thinks they are just
 "amendments" and not diametrically opposed propositions. I am not
 quite as pedantic as some people are, even when it comes
 todeterminingt the intent of the constitutional dictums

> In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution
> justifies delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much
> still to be said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having
> the issue be undecided during the DPL debates doesn't seem much of a
> win either.

        Heh. I think it is a pedantic reading that cuts off any
 discussion two qweeksa after initia; proposal, no matter how
 interesting an alternate proposal appears on the ballot.

> Again, can we please move on to a vote on this issue?

        Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of
 invariant-less GFDL licensed works?

"Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape
those who dream only by night."  -Edgar Allan Poe
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: