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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote on 22/11/2021 at 16:15:34+0100:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at 2021-11-22T16:15:27+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and
> am looking for seconds.
> Rationale
> =========
> Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this
> amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different,
> on purpose.
> Our voting system, which neither proposal modifies, as a condorcet
> voting mechanism, does not suffer directly from too many options on the
> ballot. While it is desirable to make sure the number of options on the
> ballot is not extremely high for reasons of practicality and voter
> fatigue, it is nonetheless of crucial importance that all the *relevant*
> options are represented on the ballot, so that the vote outcome is not
> questioned for the mere fact that a particular option was not
> represented on the ballot. Making this possible requires that there is
> sufficient time to discuss all relevant opinions.
> Russ' proposal introduces a hard limit of 3 weeks to any and all ballot
> processes, assuming that that will almost always be enough, and relying
> on withdrawing and restarting the voting process in extreme cases where
> it turns out more time is needed; in Russ' proposal, doing so would
> increase the discussion time by another two weeks at least (or one if
> the DPL reduces the discussion time).
> In controversial votes, I believe it is least likely for all ballot
> proposers to be willing to use this escape hatch of withdrawing the vote
> and restarting the process; and at the same time, controversial votes
> are the most likely to need a lot of discussion to build a correct
> ballot, which implies they would be most likely to need some extra time
> -- though not necessarily two more weeks -- for the ballot to be
> complete.
> At the same time, I am not insensitive to arguments of predictability,
> diminishing returns, and process abuse which seem to be the main
> arguments in favour of a hard time limit at three weeks.
> For this reason, my proposal does not introduce a hard limit, and
> *always* makes it theoretically possible to increase the discussion
> time, but does so in a way that extending the discussion time becomes
> harder and harder as time goes on. I believe it is better for the
> constitution to allow a group of people to have a short amount of extra
> time so they can finish their proposed ballot option, than to require
> the full discussion period to be restarted through the withdrawal and
> restart escape hatch. At the same time, this escape hatch is not
> removed, although I expect it to be less likely to be used.
> The proposed mechanism sets the initial discussion time to 1 week, but
> allows it to be extended reasonably easily to 2 or 3 weeks, makes it
> somewhat harder to reach 4 weeks, and makes it highly unlikely (but
> still possible) to go beyond that.
> Text of the GR
> ==============
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> requires a 3:1 majority.
> Sections 4 through 7
> --------------------
> Same changes as in Russ' proposal
> Section A
> ---------
> Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
> A.1.1. Strike the sentence "The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks".
> A.1.4. Strike in its entirety
> A.1.5. Rename to A.1.4.
> A.1.6. Strike in its entirety
> A.1.7. Rename to A.1.5.
> After A.2, insert:
> A.3. Extending the discussion time.
> 1. When less than 48 hours remain in the discussion time, any Developer
>    may propose an extension to the discussion time, subject to the
>    limitations of §A.3.3. These extensions may be seconded according to
>    the same rules that apply to new ballot options.
> 2. As soon as a time extension has received the required number of
>    seconds, these seconds are locked in and cannot be withdrawn, and the
>    time extension is active.
> 3. When a time extension has received the required number of seconds,
>    its proposers and seconders may no longer propose or second any
>    further time extension for the same ballot, and any further seconds
>    for the same extension proposal will be ignored for the purpose of
>    this paragraph. In case of doubt, the Project Secretary decides how
>    the order of seconds is determined.
> 4. The first two successful time extensions will extend the discussion
>    time by one week; any further time extensions will extend the
>    discussion time by 72 hours.
> 5. Once the discussion time is longer than 4 weeks, any Developer may
>    object to further time extensions. Developers who have previously
>    proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the
>    number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders,
>    including seconders who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
>    extension will not be active and the discussion time does not change.
> A.3. Rename to A.4.
> A.4. Rename to A.5.
> A.5. Rename (back) to A.6.

While I prefer the 3 weeks hard limit, I also second this proposal.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: