>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Would it make
Charles> sense to limit the total number of sponsors, and to only
Charles> allow developers to sponsor one option ?
>> I don't understand this concern very well. If some of your
>> sponsors don't like an amendment you accepted you can withdraw.
>> So long as you have k sponsors remaining, the option can stay on
>> the ballot.
>> What am I missing that leads to your concern?
It sounds like what russ and Charles are talking about is the following:
* You as a proposer want to accept an amendment
* A sponsor objects, and so you can't even though you would have been
able to if you had fewer sponsors.
I have an alternate proposed fix:
If the proposer accepts the amendment and there are k sponsors who have
not objected, the amendment is accepted.
(I think it's okay even if we end up counting new sponsors to get to k
who have not objected)
Obviously sponsors who don't like the amendment can go off and propose
their own ballot options.
My rationale is that we'd rather not have things be dependent on
strategic ordering of who gets accepted as a sponsor etc.
In the current constitution, the proposer of the resolution is all sorts
of special, and has special powers and so we want to carefully control
what amendments they can accept.
But under Russ's approach, the whole amendment process is really just a
convenience to make it easier to update an option with less withdrawing
and re-proposing.
I think we want to let proposers change their text provided they have
enough support at the end of the day, so let's effectively say that.
I am sympathetic to the desire to avoid having seconds/sponsorships pile
on.
And yet, I'd prefer not to have a hard limit.
I know I've found myself in cases where it was quite important to me to
be seen as expressing strong support for an option in a situation where
for example I'd been involved in helping draft the option.
And yet I wasn't faste enough on the email.
I think the same has happened to others.
So, I definitely support social conventions to limit number of
sponsors, but I'd prefer not to have a hard and fast constitutional
rule.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature