Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5
Hi Wouter,
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there
> were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things
> that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used
> in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our
> current DPL about that subject, I noticed that my reading of the
> constitution may have been in error.
> Section 3.1.2 of the constitution reads as follows:
> [...An individual developer may...]
> 2. Propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions
> whereas section 5.1.5 reads as follows:
> [...The project leader may...]
> 5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.
> I had always, probably incorrectly, interpreted the lack of the words
> "or sponsor" in that sentence as meaning that a GR proposal from the
> project leader doesn't actually require sponsors.
I'm quite certain that's the correct interpretation. Why do you now think
this interpretation is incorrect?
> That interpretation probably would have made sense if the word "draft"
> wasn't in that sentence: in that case, non-DPL DD's could propose
> "draft" GR statements, which would become "proposed" GR statements upon
> acquiring enough seconds, and "GR" statements once they had been voted
> upon. Had it not used "draft", then the Project Leader could bypass the
> "draft" phase in that order. But at any rate, that's not what it says.
A "draft" GR is one that is still in the process of being brought to a vote.
The DPL has the power to put a draft up for consideration and start the
clock on the amendment process, without requiring any seconds to do so.
Likewise, under the Standard Resolution Procedure (Appx. A), the DPL can
propose an amendment to someone else's resolution which becomes a formal
amendment with no seconds required, and it can be accepted by the drafter of
the original proposal or rejected and immediately become an additional
ballot option.
> Having thought about it this way for years (without ever having seen
> it happen, of course), I do believe this is actually not that bad an
> idea, as it would allow a DPL to fast-track a vote on an important
> issue: recall that any accepted amendment resets the discussion period,
> as per A.2.4; to avoid unnecessary delay in the procedure, the DPL could
> use that power to bring an amendment on the ballot immediately, without
> having to wait a few days for more formal seconds and thereby risk what
> I'll call "accidental filibustering".
Bearing in mind that the meaning of "accepted amendment" is an amendment
*that's accepted by the author of the original proposal* and is thus
incorporated into the first ballot option. Rejected amendments, i.e. those
that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
period.
> If people do not think I'm crazy, I'd like to propose a formal amendment
> to make this reading the official one.
I don't understand what should need amending here, as your reading appears
to already be the correct one (and, indeed, the only one that makes any
sense given the language in the constitution). If the current language is
unclear, I don't mind trying to clarify it... but I think that could easily
backfire. :)
> At any rate, ignoring what may be no more than a silly brain fart on my
> end, there's still a bit in there which could use some clarification: as
> written currently, and ignoring the procedure under A.1, it would appear
> as if non-DPL developers don't actually have the right to propose
> amendments. This is obviously in error, and I think it wouldn't hurt to
> fix that.
This is currently covered in 4.2.
1. A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
and sponsored by at least K other Developers, or if proposed by the Project
Leader or the Technical Committee.
Adjusting 3.1.2 to add "or amendments" would be correct and may be less
confusing, but is not strictly required.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: