Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)
Thank you very much for the review!
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
>> after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
>> point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
>> cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
>> vote.
> Can options be added or removed during that 24 hour period?
Yes; the intent was for that to follow naturally from 6.3.1.2 and the fact
that nothing says this cannot happen. But maybe I should change the last
sentence to say "During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a vote,
but Technical Committee members may make ballot changes under 6.3.1.2"
just to make it explicit?
>> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
>>
>> When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
>> ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
>> 4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
>> minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
>> does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
>> Technical Committee.
> How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?
That was what I was assuming because I don't think the TC has any other
decision-making mechanism than that, but I guess that's not completely
clear in the constitution. Maybe add "(via a resolution)" after
"delegate"?
>> Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:
>>
>> A.0. Proposal
>>
>> 1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
>> sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
>> that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
>> labeling the ballot choice.
> I'm not sure how useful a summary is at the stage of the
> proposal. Depending on the other options that might get added later, it
> might not be clear. So I'm not sure a "must" there is useful.
Good point. This is the surface of a larger discussion that didn't really
get resolved. Currently, the constitution says that whoever calls for a
vote is responsible for coming up with the summaries. The goal here was
to shift that responsibility to the person proposing the option (since the
Project Secretary is now the one calling for a vote), but maybe that needs
to move to some explicit statement under calling for a vote?
Maybe dropping that from A.0.1 and changing A.3.2 to:
2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. The
proposer of each option must provide a single-line summary of that
option suitable for labeling the ballot choice. The Project
Secretary at their discretion may reword the single-line summaries
for clarity.
How does that sound?
Alternately, we could just say that the Project Secretary writes the
summaries, but I wasn't sure if that would be welcome or is a good idea.
>> 3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
>> ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
>> requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
>> being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
>> forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
>> the length of the discussion period.
> If they wait for more than 24 hours, I assume they need to follow A.1.2
> (and so can change the length of the discussion period)?
Yes. Do you think that needs clarification?
>> A.3. Calling for a vote
>>
>> 1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
>> publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
>> do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
>> must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.
> Given all the options where 24 hours after the discussion period is over
> things can still change, wouldn't it be better to wait at least 24 hours
> before calling a vote?
I think there's a fundamental confusion here somewhere that I must
clarify, since there isn't anything that can happen 24 hours after the
discussion period is over. There are a bunch of things that are allowed
to happen in the 24 hours immediately before the discussion period ends
(and other things that can't happen in that period).
The other reading of ("within 24 hours of the end of the discussion
period") never occurred to me, although it's obvious in retrospect.
Maybe in A.3.4 (for example) it would be clearer to say "no proposers or
sponsors may withdraw in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion
period"? And likewise in A.3.5, "Actions to preserve the existing ballot
may be taken in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion period."
> It seems that this applies everything using the Standard Resolution
> Procedure, including Technical Committee votes. Is it intentional that
> the Secretary will be involved in those now, while that did not happen
> before?
It does not (unless I missed something). There should no longer be any
references to the Standard Resolution Procedure in general in the new
version of the constitution except 4.2.1 (General Resolutions) and 5.2.7
(DPL elections). Those other sections specifically reference A.5 only,
which is just the vote-counting system.
> Does a call for vote mean that people can start voting soon afterwards?
> I prefer to start a vote during a period I know I can make time
> available, and would be happier with a 7 day period.
Yeah, the intent is to use "call for a vote" to mean publishing the ballot
and let people start voting. To me that's the natural meaning, although
the current constitution uses it differently. (A better term is very
welcome.)
I can change five days to seven days; I think there should be some limit,
but the actual limit feels fairly arbitrary and I'm happy to pick
something that fits with how you normally do things.
>> 2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
>> their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
>> clarity.
>>
>> 3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
>> after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
>> the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
>> of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
>> vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
>> after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.
> I suggest rewording this to avoid the negative, so remove the "not",
> change the "unless" to "if". The same applies to some of the other
> points.
> It's also unclear what the "after or within 24 hours" means.
Yeah, this is part of the whole "within" confusion per above. How about:
3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may only be made
if at least 24 hours are remaining in the discussion period, or if
the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.
>> Strike section A.5 in its entirety.
> I can you can change the "Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety
> with:" to include A.5.
Yes, good idea, will do.
> I think 4.2.1 still has: "resolution or amendment". Is that something
> you want to change to "resolution or ballot options"?
Good catch, yes.
> The compare link on has at least:
> - section §A.5
> - §A.5
> - section §A.5
> Can you make it more consistent?
Yes, will do. The first of those three was the intended one to use.
Unfortunately, the constitution is in general inconsistent, so I think
without including some additional statement in my GR I can only fix the
bits that I'm already editing. I suppose I could maybe add a blanket
statement to change the syntax of all the section references or something.
It's hard to write this GR to both be complete and accurate, and even
vaguely readable without being annoyingly long.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: