I second the below amendament.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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 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.
> >
> > 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 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.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.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature