On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote: > I think trying to propose many options together is very wrong as you are > very probably not objective for all the options nor will you be able to > word it properly for the ones that do care about an option you don't really > care about. I would vote all of these above Further Discussion, so I think it is legitimate for me to propose and second them. Further more, in this specific case I do not believe that Debian would be well served by a vote which does not list all those options. I am trying very hard to make sure that people are not voting FD first. > The other risk you take by proposing many options at once is to mix > unrelated things in the same vote IMHO. I am trying to be careful not to do this, I definitely believe that all of the below are legitimate alternative options which very definitely should be on the same ballot, as they address the same thing: making it clear what options require a supermajority. >> Option 1 - No Supermajority >> > I would be very surprised if this option would get enough seconds if you > would propose it. Then fine, it can be removed. I have seen, I think, at least 3 mails to the lists explicitly suggesting this, however. >> Option 2 - All conflicting GR options require a Supermajority >> >> We believe that any GR which has an option which overrides some or all >> of a foundation document, even temporarily, implicitly modifies it to >> contain this exception and thus requires a 3:1 majority > > This all boils down to the definition of override which I tried to state in > the other thread. If you go by my definition, this is really a non-option > IMHO. I'll address that below >> This option amends the constitution and social contract and hence >> requires a 3:1 majority. > > This option does not look related to supermajority requirements to me. I just had to clarify this on IRC too. This option is "all conflicting options need supermajority even if temporary", but then amending the SC so that balancing SC1 and SC4 isn't conflicting with the SC. Sorry if that wasn't clear. >> Option 6 - Votes may modify or be a position statement, but must be explicit >> >> We believe that any vote which overrides a Foundation Document modifies >> it to contain that exception and must explicitly say so in the proposal >> before the vote proceeds. Such overrides require a 3:1 majority. > > This is already the case AFAICS The entire point of this vote is that opinions vary on what is already the case. You think that option 6 is already the case. I think that option 2 is already the case and some people think that option 5 is already the case. All of use are absolutely convinced it's the only way to read the constitution. I'm fed up of having arguments about what it means, whether a particular reading is consistent, or what the spirit of the constitution is. I want it to be explicit, hence this vote to clarify it. > PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the > terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it. I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some examlpes. I'm maybe not using the terminology you'd like, but I hope you can see what I mean. Here they are again: 1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1) 2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1) 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?) 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?) 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't want to override the FD (?) 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say which of 2-5 it is. 1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like. 3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release". 4. is things like "we think that firmware can be its own source, so shipping blobs is fine" 5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs. This does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense. Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset. Incidentally my point of view is that 3 requires supermajority, 4 does not and that 5 and 6 should be rejected by the secretary as invalid. I hope that has explained things better and you can see where I'm coming from, Matt 0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00091.html -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature