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

Re: Question for the other candidates: supermajority.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> After the very painful GR about “Lenny and resolving DFSG violations”,
> discussions started about our voting system, and the fact that it does not
> accomodate well with mixture of supermajority and regular options. Also,
> disagreements whether an option needs the supermajority often starts bitter
> debates.
> Do you think it is a problem that you would like to solve as a DPL?

Not at all. I think this is the kind of problem that should be solved
either by consensus or by a GR.  I don't think it would do any good to
solve it "as DPL".

> For the supermajority, I think that it should be used only when modifying
> directly foundation documents. As a compensation, we may let the Secretary
> declare a GR ‘unconstitutional’ and refuse to let it be applied. This would
> remove a lot of meta-discussion in GRs that already produce many emails. In
> contrary with our current sytem, constitutionality of an option would only be
> decided after it gets the Condorcet majority.

I don't think this makes any sense.  It'd mean that we would be voting
for something only to have it invalidated after it's voted.  It would
lead to a lot of flamewars, and probably to the resignation of the
acting secretary.

I think the best scenario is that the secretary states why a certain
option would require supermajority, and then the proposer can a)
re-formulate the option so that it doesn't require supermajority, b)
present it as a separate ballot, c) accept to have mixed options in
the ballot.

I think that if what's going on is clear for everybody, it's easier to
reach some common ground, to find an option that suits the interests
of the proposer without requiring supermajority. Having to wait until
the end of the election process to hear what the secretary thinks
would only mean lost time and a lot of frustration.

> This said, I have not mentionned supermajority issues in my platform, since I
> think that the main points I propose would keep me busy enough if I am elected.
> I would be pleased however if somebody would self-appoint and lead this debate,
> if there is the impression that it is needed.

I would definitely not lead it myself, and I would rather we spent our
time in more productive activities.


Reply to: