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

[not a second] Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
> smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000
> Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there
> should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with
> something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work.

I can't think of any vote in the (recent) past that shouldn't have
happened. Can you point at one?

> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal
> goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30
> supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth
> taking up time of everyone else.

I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This would
allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary, without being
restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could you add those to
your proposed resolution, so people can second all of them at the same
time and reduce the number of emails on -vote@?

> As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different
> options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal
> goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones
> pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a "Keep it
> like it is, no discusssion" is needed, I would accept such an amendment
> too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still).

I would like to have such an option as well.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Reply to: