On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:00:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to
> > better understand the proposed changes, I have made
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-russ/english/devel/constitution.wml
> > (which is a version of the constitution with the changes as proposed by
> > Russ) and
> > https://salsa.debian.org/wouter/webwml/-/blob/constitution-wouter/english/devel/constitution.wml
> > (with the required changes as per my proposal). While doing so, I
> > realized there were a few cross-references still that I needed to update
> > as well.
>
> Thank you so much! This saved me tons of time.
Well, it only took about an hour or so, so I wouldn't say "tons", but yeah :-)
> > Russ, please review the patch I wrote, so as to make sure I haven't made
> > any mistakes in your proposal.
>
> I confirm that you accurately reflected the changes from my proposal
Cool.
> except that your version (quite reasonably) doesn't include the minor
> change to add "is" in A.2.3.
>
> I did a bit of reformatting with an eye to such a diff eventually being
> merged that makes the HTML style match what appeared to be the prevailing
> style in the rest of the document and will use that version to generate an
> "official" diff of my proposal. Not sure whether you want to rebase on
> that version or not; I can push it up to Salsa in my own repo, or give you
> a PR against your repo, or whatever else is convenient.
>
> I'm happy to help with that rebasing if you'd like and give you a PR for
> your branch as well. It's the least that I can do after you did all the
> work of recasting my proposal in webwml.
Any and all MRs that reflect what's been discussed/decided on this list
are definitely welcome.
> > Rationale
> > =========
>
> I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the collaborative and
> collegial tone of this rationale even though by necessity you're laying
> out how you disagree with my proposal. It's really excellent. And in
> general I've been very happy with how constructive and positive this whole
> discussion has been.
Likewise. I wish I could say "but of course, that's how things are
done", except that things do tend to get a bit emotional on this list
sometimes.
> > Section A
> > ---------
>
> > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
>
> > A.1.1. Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks."
> > by "The initial discussion period is 1 week." 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.
>
> I think you also want to remove:
>
> In this case the length of the discussion period is not changed.
>
> from this section because that's only there because of the provision in
> A.1.4 that you are removing. You can probably do this as a minor change
> since it doesn't affect the meaning.
Yes, thanks; good catch.
> > 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.
>
> Minor point: We routinely in casual discussion use the term "seconded,"
> but the constitution uniformly uses "sponsor" and the word "seconded"
> doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. I adjusted my change while I
> was drafting it to stick with that language and you may want to make the
> same change here.
>
> Same note for points 2 and 3.
Yes, indeed; changed as such.
I've made those two changes as a minor change below.
> > 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.
>
> "this paragraph" sounds like it may only be applying to point 3, and I
> think you mean for the purposes of this whole section. You may want to
> word this as "for the purposes of this section" instead.
No, they should not be ignored for the purpose of point 5.
I'd welcome any suggestions to clarify that wording, if you think that
is necessary.
Speaking of point 5, I've also replaced "outweigh" by "outnumber", which
I think is less awkward.
Updated version:
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
--------------------
Copy from Russ' proposal, replacing cross-references to §A.5 by §A.6,
where relevant.
Section A
---------
Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes:
A.1.1. Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks."
by "The initial discussion period is 1 week." 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, and strike the sentence "In this case the length
of the discussion period is not changed".
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 sponsored according to
the same rules that apply to new ballot options.
2. As soon as a time extension has received the required number of
sponsors, these sponsorships are locked in and cannot be withdrawn,
and the time extension is active.
3. When a time extension has received the required number of sponsors,
its proposers and sponsors may no longer propose or sponsor any
further time extension for the same ballot, and any further sponsors
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 sponsorships 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 sponsored a time extension may object as well. If the
number of objections outnumber the proposer and their sponsors,
including sponsors 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.3.6 (now A.4.6): replace 'A.3.4' by 'A.4.4'.
A.4. Rename to A.5.
A.4.2 (now A.5.2): replace '§A.5' by '§A.6'.
A.5. Rename (back) to A.6.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature