Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm the GR process
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:44:18PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/03/09 at 00:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > =======================================================================
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project, which have served us well since the first GR vote in 2003,
> > > with 804 developers, nearly has much as today slightly over 1000
> > > developers.
> > >
> > > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms its attachement to the
> > > constitution and the current General Resolutions process.
> > > =======================================================================
> > > PROPOSAL END
> >
> > IMO this deserves to be an explicit option on the ballot. It makes for a
> > much clearer choice than having "further discussion" fulfill that role.
> >
> > OTOH, I think the text of the amendment could be improved as the GR from
> > Ganneff does not really change the GR _process_ but only the requirements
> > regarding nr. of seconders.
> >
> > I'd second a somewhat revised text, for example:
> > Therefore the Debian project confirms the current requirements for
> > the sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for
> > overruling of delegates.
> >
> > I'll not comment on the accuracy of the first para.
>
> Indeed, the numbers are clearly questionable. Maybe it shouldn't include
> them, and also provide a sketch of justification for refusing the
> change?
Well the numbers are the one published on vote.debian.org. Everyone
can check that.
> Something like:
> <---
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project, which have served us well for years. While over those years,
> some problems have arised during the discussion and/or voting of some
> resolutions, there is no evidence that changing the number of sponsors
> (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments will help solve those problems.
> Instead, by making it harder to propose general resolutions or
> amendments, it might make it harder to improve imperfect resolutions, or
> to add valuable options to a ballot.
> --->
I am quite ready to accept that my amendment when hastily drafted and far
from perfect. Please propose a better amendment and I will gladly rescind
mine.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: