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

Re: Restated Amendment: We Choose Wording of the Day

I second the below amendment.

BTW I seconded Andreas's original GR too, but am persuaded by this so
would like to see it on the ballot.

Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:

> Restated to fix comments received.
> For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous
> amendment.
> As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
> voting fix introduces more problems than it serves.  INstead, I propose
> that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves to propose ballot options
> that are statement-of-the-day-like ballot options not requiring a
> super-majority when doing so is wise.  I think that doing so is
> generally a good idea when you have a super-majority option and its
> opposite on the same ballot--when there is substantial contraversy about
> whether to move in the direction of the super-majority option or some
> other option on the same ballot.
> I have chosen to retain the preference for the default option in the TC.
> If four members of the TC really cannot live with an option, we're
> better off with more discussion or taking it to a GR.
> Even in the Init system discussion, which I think is the most
> controversial decision to come before the TC, several of the TC members
> who preferred options that did not win explained what changes would need
> to be made for them to consider options similar to the one that won to
> be acceptable (ranked above FD).
> As it happened, four TC members didn't think no decision was better than
> the decision we got: if four members had ranked the winning option below
> FD, the chair would not have had the opportunity to use his casting
> vote.
> We also have some strong evidence from emails where some TC members
> explained their balloting decisions including what they ranked above FD
> that the tactical voting people were afraid of didn't happen.
> We're actually quite good at deciding whether another round of painful
> discussion is worth the cost or not, and when people we've appointed to
> make these decision decide that it is, I'd rather not second guess them.
> Specifically, I formally propose to replace the GR text with:
>    Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>    Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>    Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
>    Unfortunately, the definition of supermajorities in the SSD GR has a
>    off-by-one  error.  In the new text a supermajority requirement is met
>    only if the ratio of votes in favour to votes against is strictly
>    greater than the supermajority ratio.
>    In the context of the Technical Committee voting to overrule a
>    developer that means that it takes 4 votes to overcome a single
>    dissenter.  And with a maximum committee size of 8, previously two
>    dissenters could be outvoted by all 6 remaining members; now that
>    is no longer possible.
>    This change was unintentional, was contrary to the original intent
>    of the Constitution, and is unhelpful.
>    For the avoidance of any doubt, this change does not affect any
>    votes (whether General Resolutions or votes in the Technical
>    Committee) in progress at the time the change is made.
>    Therefore, amend the Debian Constitution as follows:
> Index: doc/constitution.wml
> ===================================================================
> --- doc/constitution.wml	(revision 10982)
> +++ doc/constitution.wml	(working copy)
> @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@
>               </li> 
>               <li> 
>                    An option A defeats the default option D by a majority
> -                  ratio N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
> +                  ratio N, if V(A,D) is greater or equal to  N * V(D,A) and V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A).
>               </li> 
>               <li> 
>                    If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio
>    Constitutional Amendment: Fix duplicate section numbering.
>    The current Debian Constitution has two sections numbered A.1.
>    This does not currently give rise to any ambiguity but it is
>    undesirable.
>    Fix this with the following semantically neutral amendment:
>     - Renumber the first section A.1 to A.0.

|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: