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

Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR



On 19-12-03 11 h 15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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
> proposals.)
> 
> 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 [2],
> 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
>     overturned.
> 
>  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),
>     above.)
> 
>  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),
>     as applicable.)
> 
>  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.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> [1] Russ's mail about timing
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/11/msg00184.html
>

So far I've stayed away from writing on the list, since I think it has
been very verbose and I find that tiresome.

I'm tired of this GR already and in my heart, I wish I could just vote
and be done with it.

Yet, I have to agree with folks who say this whole thing has moved very
quickly. I salute Sam for trying to push important issues ahead, but I
fear we could all benefit from a vote in January.

I'm not sure Ian's GR proposal really helps and I don't see any other
solution than Sam agreeing to postpone the vote.

Sam, please consider postponing the vote on the init GR after January,
even though it might push back other issues (like the whole git ordeal).

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: