Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR
- To: Guillem Jover <email@example.com>, Bdale Garbee <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Gabriel <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR
- From: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 16:15:02 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has
IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we
can make a version which combines Guillem's framing with some
appropriate specific guidance, perhaps taken from one of the other
Sam has decided to cut short this process. We started this public
discussion less than a month ago. This is very short.
I think we can use the constitutional process to delay this, to make
sure the options on this important ballot reflect the range of views
within the project, so people can vote for options that accurately
reflect their opinions.
We can do this with enough time to vote before Christmas, as Russ
reasonably points out is desirable. Russ suggested a voting period
starting on the 8th of December would be the latest sensible ,
which probably means a call for votes the previous day.
I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
2. The DPL's decision to call for a vote on the init systems GR
is overturned. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
3. Additionally, if the DPL's decision to call for a vote is enabled
by a decision by the DPL to vary the minimum discussion period:
the DPL's decision to vary the minimum discussion period is
4. If the decision to call for a vote cannot be overturned via
Constitution 4.1(3), the DPL's decision(s) to propose all the
DPL's options on the ballot(s) is overturned. We believe the
effect of this is to either stop the process so that it must be
restarted, or to drop the DPL's options from the ballot so that
the DPL no longer has standing to call for a vote. (We would
prefer the latter, if we can't have what we want in (1) and (2),
5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
(i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
(ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
to our (1), above; and
(ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.
 Russ's mail about timing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.