Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
Thank you so much! This saved me tons of time.
> Russ, please review the patch I wrote, so as to make sure I haven't made
> any mistakes in your proposal.
I confirm that you accurately reflected the changes from my proposal
except that your version (quite reasonably) doesn't include the minor
change to add "is" in A.2.3.
I did a bit of reformatting with an eye to such a diff eventually being
merged that makes the HTML style match what appeared to be the prevailing
style in the rest of the document and will use that version to generate an
"official" diff of my proposal. Not sure whether you want to rebase on
that version or not; I can push it up to Salsa in my own repo, or give you
a PR against your repo, or whatever else is convenient.
I'm happy to help with that rebasing if you'd like and give you a PR for
your branch as well. It's the least that I can do after you did all the
work of recasting my proposal in webwml.
> Rationale
> =========
I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the collaborative and
collegial tone of this rationale even though by necessity you're laying
out how you disagree with my proposal. It's really excellent. And in
general I've been very happy with how constructive and positive this whole
discussion has been.
> 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.
I think you also want to remove:
In this case the length of the discussion period is not changed.
from this section because that's only there because of the provision in
A.1.4 that you are removing. You can probably do this as a minor change
since it doesn't affect the meaning.
> 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.
Minor point: We routinely in casual discussion use the term "seconded,"
but the constitution uniformly uses "sponsor" and the word "seconded"
doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. I adjusted my change while I
was drafting it to stick with that language and you may want to make the
same change here.
Same note for points 2 and 3.
> 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.
"this paragraph" sounds like it may only be applying to point 3, and I
think you mean for the purposes of this whole section. You may want to
word this as "for the purposes of this section" instead.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: