Let's try this signed. Seconded On 2021/11/26 12:35, Kyle Robbertze wrote:
On 2021/11/23 09:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:.... aaand this should've been signed. Good morning. On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:... and then I realize I *also* made a (small, but crucial) mistake: On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...]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".This should additionally say, Replace the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks." by "The initial discussion period is 1 week." as my proposal does not allow the DPL to reduce the discussion time, and instead reduces the discussion time always, relying on the time extension procedure to lengthen it, if required (which the DPL can use without seconds, once). Since both Russ and myself seem to be having issues here, in order to better understand the proposed changes, I have madehttps://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) andhttps://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. Russ, please review the patch I wrote, so as to make sure I haven't made any mistakes in your proposal. All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my seconders would re-affirm that they agree with the changes I propose, and apologies for the mess. 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. 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 ofseconds, these seconds are locked in and cannot be withdrawn, and thetime 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 timeextension 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.Seconded
-- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Kyle Robbertze ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Debian Developer ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://wiki.debian.org/KyleRobbertze
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature