[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

... 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}


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: