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

Re: Procedural rulings about proposing and sponsoring General resolutions

may I propose a simpler procedure.

> 1. The electronic mailing list designated is
>    debian-vote@lists.debian.org.  This is the authoritative source of
>    the full text of all resolutions, as well as the supporting
>    arguments and other material.
> 2. Every proposal and sponsoring email must be signed with the
>    cryptographic key that lives in the Debian keyrings. The keyrings
>    are part of the authoritative answer to who is or is not a Debian
>    developer.
> 3. Every proposal must clearly indicate the bounds of the proposal,
>    which must be clearly delineated from surrounding text of the mail
>    message.

That's fine.

>             Every sponsor must also indicate they full text they are
>    sponsoring. This implies that the sponsor may not just cite the
>    whole message in toto.

That's unnecessarily burdensome IMHO. Sponsors can't selectively sponsor
just a part of the proposal, it is all or none. Also, it is the proposer
who determines what the text of the proposal is, not the sponsors, who
only get to say yes or no (they may propose amendments, but it is up to
the proposer whether to accept them and how to write the amended text).
Thus, I see no point in requiring that sponsors quote the full text, as
long as it is identified unambiguously in the proposal. It doesn't
either prove that the sponsor did read and understand the proposal, only
that (s)he is able to cut and paste.

Instead, I propose that:
- One must not send two or more proposals in the same message. If the
Project Secretary rules that the proposal should be split, (s)he'll ask
the proposer to resend the splitted parts in separate messages.
- Sponsors only have to identify unambiguously the mail message
containing the proposal: they can do that either by replying to it
(In-reply-to: field must be set correctly), or by quoting its message
id, or by any other way that the Project Secretary doesn't object to.
Whether they should quote the message body, and which part of it, is
left to their discretion.

Not having to check whether the text was quoted correctly is also one
less thing to do for the Project Secretary, and thus one less chance to
be accused of abuse.

>4. When the vote is called, the proposer or a sponsor of every
>    proposal or amendment must provide a final version of the proposal
>    or amendment in wml format for inclusion on the web pages of the
>    Debian project. This wml snippet must be verified to contain
>    exactly the text that was delineated and sponsored.
> 5. When the vote is called, the proposer or a sponsor of every
>    proposal or amendment must provide a single line (60 character)
>    synopsis of their proposal or amendment. This synopsis shall be
>    taken into account by the secretary when creating the ballot.
>        Failing items 4 and 5, the secretaries version shall be deemed
> final. It is strongly suggested that the proposers and sponsors be
> prepared with the matter in question before the end of the minimal
> discussion period, since the vote shall not be delayed on account of
> these missing items.

That's also fine.


Reply to: