On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:24:45AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:03:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > > > For whatever it's worth, I believe the second option changes the > > foundation documents and would require a 3:1 majority. The person who's > > canonical on that is the Secretary. > > Dear Russ, Stefano, Wouter and Margarita. > > I would like to take the opportunity of Russ's comment to ask to the other > candidates their opinions about the supermajority votes. > > 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. I'm not quite convinced that was the case; as I remember what happened then, these discussions were more about whether some options would have needed a supermajority to begin with. > 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? I believe this problem has been solved already. During the vote you refer to, it became rather apparent that the then-current secretary, Manoj Srivastava, had a different opinion on when a vote would require a supermajority than did many developers in the project. As a direct result of that, the secretary decided to resign from his post. We have had some discussion, and I believe the general consensus on what needs to happen is now much clearer, and also shared by the current secretary. If the current secretary feels that there are still some areas in which things could be made clearer, we can have a GR to clarify the constitution. However, I don't think that is necessary. > During the discussions that started after the GR, I suggested that the GR > proposer should have more control about the options put to the vote. In > particular, it would be useful if he can refuse an option that would > disequilibrate the voting system. That would make him responsible for the > success of the GR: discarding a popular option is taking the risk that the > whole GR is refused and the option is accepted as a separate GR, which is the > kind of public failure that I expect that people will avoid. I'm not quite sure that's a very good idea, but perhaps it could work. > For the supermajority, I think that it should be used only when > modifying directly foundation documents. I agree, and I feel this is the current consensus within the project. [...] -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature