Re: Draft GR for resolution process changes
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
> convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
> that I wonder:
> - (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
> adopting them? Maybe with some kind of role-playing game where some
> random people are assigned adversarial roles?
I'm quite happy to participate in this, although I don't know how to get
started or how to organize it. I've mentally run through various
scenarios to try to anticipate them in the draft, but since I wrote it I
have blind spots and I definitely welcome anything that would help us go
over the implications carefully.
> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the proposer is more
> at risk to face vetos when accepting amendments. (I write that as I
> accepted major changes as the proposer of a GR option some years
> ago.) Would it make sense to limit the total number of sponsors, and
> to only allow developers to sponsor one option ?
This is a very good point. Currently, nothing except social convention
prevents people from continuing to sponsor GRs or amendments (ballot
options in the new proposal) after they've already reached the necessary
number of sponsors. I tried to limit the impact of this a little by
saying that only people who had already sponsored the ballot option at the
time an amendment is proposed can object to it (the current constitution
appears to allow someone to sponsor a GR just to object to an amendment),
but that doesn't entirely fix the issue.
Probably the simplest fix would be to add something like this as a new
point A.0.3. Do people think it would be worth adding something like
this?
If a proposal (or ballot option; see section §A.1) requires some
number of sponsors N, only the first N Developers indicating they
sponsor the proposal become sponsors for the purposes of the
subsequent process. Further sponsorships are not counted. Similarly,
if more sponsors are needed (such as in cases of withdrawal; see
section §A.2), only the number of Developers required to meet the
minimum number of sponsors are added as sponsors. The Project
Secretary determines the order in which sponsors indicate support.
(I'm really not happy with the wording of that, and am finding it
difficult to word clearly for some reason. Suggestions welcome, if folks
think this is something the proposal should try to address.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: