Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:58 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Filibustering general resolutions"):
>> Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian
>> developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting
>> up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative
>> changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small
>> number of very different proposals).
> I don't think that's true; I think you've misread it.
> A.2(4):
> 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last
> formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was
> proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted.
> If the original proposers of the GR don't accept the amendment, then
> the discussion period isn't restarted.
I am not sure this is the model we should be following )I know
we are currently not following it at all). Your reading of the
wording means that, strictly speaking, there is only a two week (or
one week, if the DPL wishes) window for people to come up with
alternate proposals, and there could be proposals submitted with no
discussion at all, if the vote is called after the minimum discussion
period.
The ambiguous point here is the word "accepted". Accepted by
whom? The proposer of the original proposal? Or the project secretary
as being a valid amendment to the proposal, whether or not accepted
by the proposers of the initial proposal?
I have always construed to to be the latter. Being first past
the gate does not give one any additional powers, in my view,
including having the full discussion period, as opposed to a
curtailed one for the last proposal to sneak in under the bar.
I still think that the constitution needs be amended, and here
is my off the cuff diff for it:
--- /usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.1.1.txt 2006-03-14 08:37:56.000000000 -0600
+++ NEW_GR.txt 2006-09-20 21:11:53.000000000 -0500
@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
2. propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions;
3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections;
4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections.
+ 5. propose or sponsor a motion asking for faster processing of a
+ stalled general resolution
3.2. Composition and appointment
@@ -139,6 +141,14 @@
7. Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
K is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not be
integers and are not rounded.
+ 8. If the discussion period has not ended after 6 weeks from the
+ time the initial proposal was proposed and seconded, a minimum
+ of 4 * K developers may ask for expedited processing by asking for
+ the imposition of a deadline for the proposal. The discussion
+ period shall then start in 2 weeks from the time of the request
+ for expedited processing, with whatever proposal and amendments
+ wihch are at under consideration at the beginning of the discussion
+ period. The Project Leader may vary the deadline period by p to a week.
5. Project Leader
@@ -178,6 +188,8 @@
personal views.
10. Together with SPI, make decisions affecting property held in trust
for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.1.)
+ 11. Vary the deadline for clossing of proposals for a stalled
+ general resolution.
5.2. Appointment
manoj
--
Kids, the seven basic food groups are GUM, PUFF PASTRY, PIZZA,
PESTICIDES, ANTIBIOTICS, NUTRA-SWEET and MILK DUDS!!
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: