Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 05:51:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering"):
> > Having given this some more thought, I believe I've come to understand
> > why you don't see this to be such a crazy idea as I believe it is.
> ....
> > This works for votes where the electorate (either the TC or all DD's for
> > a GR) wish to overrule some other developer's opinion. If the overruling
> > vote wins and makes supermajority, then the other developer in question
> > has been overruled. If the overruling vote wins but does *not* make
> > supermajority, we in effect ask the other developer in question to
> > either "please" or "pretty please, with sugar on top" (depending on
> > whether the TC or the project as a whole voted) change things, without
> > requiring said change.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Things become rather murky, however, when we're voting on a change to
> > the constitution or a Foundation Document, which also requires a 3:1
> > supermajority.
> >
> > If a vote to make a change the constitution wins, but does not make its
> > required supermajority, then what? Did we just add a paragraph "we think
> > this is a good idea, but you're not required to follow this bit of
> > procedure" to the constitution? That seems pointless, and would probably
> > make the constitution very hard to read if it happens a lot.
>
> Which is why in those cases my proposal does not do that.
Yes it does.
> > Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's still a
> > non-binding resolution, or something.
>
> In these cases, my proposal produces `FD'.
It does not.
> > Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the constitution"
> > seems to make no sense.
>
> I entirely agree.
Good.
> > In other words, while I understand where you're coming from and why you
> > believe this change is desirable, I think it does have some dangerous
> > side effects that you may not have considered. I therefore strongly urge
> > you (and everyeone who's seconded the original proposal) to reconsider,
> > and decide whether you really believe the above-described scenario is in
> > any way desirable, and I further urge you to come up with a solution to
> > that problem before this is brought to a vote.
>
> I think if you read my proposal again you will see that it doesn't
> have the bad effect you identify.
If you're referring to the casting vote exception in the proposal, you
urgently need to reread §5.1.7 of the constitution: the DPL has a
casting vote for GRs!
--
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer
-- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
Reply to: