... let's try that with cryptography this time around.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:58:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:46:51PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes:
> >
> > Wouter> Hi Kurt,
> > Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
> > Wouter> alive as long as it has not yet expired, but that it cannot
> > Wouter> be revived once it has expired. But I now think it does not
> > Wouter> forbid someone from sponsoring an extension proposal when
> > Wouter> the discussion time has already expired.
> >
> > Wouter> So I think I should add the following to my A.3:
> >
> > Wouter> 6. Once the discussion time expires, any pending time
> > Wouter> extension proposals that have not yet received their
> > Wouter> required number of sponsors are null and void, and no
> > Wouter> further time extensions may be proposed.
> >
> > Wouter> Or is that superfluous?
> >
> > Please say one way or the other so we don't fight about it later:-)
>
> Heh :)
>
> I first wanted to know whether other people think my reading makes
> sense, or if I'm just overthinking it...
>
> > Thanks for noticing this.
>
> I'll take it you think I'm not overthinking things then.
>
> > So, out of morbid curiosity about the current formal process. If you
> > propose this change, can Russ accept it for you, or could he only do
> > that if he accepts your entire proposal as an amendment?
>
> I could bypass the whole thing and claim a minor change. That's probably
> cheating, but then again, it is what I had always intended, so from that
> POV I guess it isn't.
>
> So unless someone objects, the below is now the proposal:
>
> 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.
>
> 6. Once the discussion time expires, any pending time extension
> proposals that have not yet received their required number of
> sponsors are null and void, and no further time extensions may be
> proposed.
>
> 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}
>
>
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature