On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled > > in contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires > > that new ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an > > outstanding GR proposal in order to appear on the same ballot. Manoj > > has overstepped his authority in order to group separately proposed > > resolutions about orthogonal questions on a single ballot, over the > > explicit objections of the proposer/seconders. This is not a power > > granted to the secretary under A.2.
> All related options are placed on the ballot, no? I am working > on the basis that any proposal, and all related proposals that may > affect the action to be taken, must be on the ballot. What A.3.1. actually says is: Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a single ballot that includes an option for the original resolution, each amendment, and the default option (where applicable). That doesn't give the secretary the power to group separate proposals on a single ballot merely because they touch on the same subject matter; it says only that related *amendments* belong on the same ballot. > None of the amendments in recent votes take the formal form (I > amend foo, and replace all the words in the proposal with the words > below). Amendments (made formal by seconds) just propose what the > alternate handling being proposed, and related proposals go on the > ballot. This is how the "related amendment" has been handled in > practice over the last several years. Where there's ambiguity about whether a proposer intended an amendment vs. a stand-alone proposal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow the secretary latitude in determining intent so as to not get bogged down in proceduralism. I don't think that was the case here for <[email protected]> - though I'm having a hard time coming up with references at the moment, I believe there were objections from some of the seconders of this proposal that it was meant to be a stand-alone proposal rather than an amendment. When I wrote my earlier message, I believed this was much more clear-cut; on review, I see that the original proposer left the question rather open by referring to his GR as a "GR (option)". So there are still two possibilities here: - enough of the 17 seconders expressed no opinion on the question of whether this shoud be a separate GR, as would allow interpreting their intent in favor of treating it as an amendment and putting it on a ballot with the original proposal - more than 12 of the formal seconders objected to placing this proposal on the same ballot with the original due to the orthogonal issues, in which case it's not constitutionally valid to override their stated intent by treating it as an amendment. So chances are, there's enough ambiguity here that it's constitutionally valid to put it on the same ballot as a "related amendment". There's a separate issue here, however; namely, that the secretary is the *only* line of defense against gaming of the GR process by a small group of developers who propose an uncontroversial but orthogonal amendment that will always win over the alternatives, in the process preventing the will of the project from being formally enacted: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/10/msg00168.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00052.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00095.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00101.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00105.html It's not unconstitutional for the secretary to keep orthogonal amendments on the same ballot, and it is the secretary's prerogative to keep amendments grouped on a single ballot if he believes they are related. But when there are multiple orthogonal issues being considered on a single ballot, choosing to not split those ballots means disenfranchising the proposers of the less-popular-but-popular-enough-to-pass option. Given that developers already have the power to propose as many serial GRs as needed in order to reconcile incompatibilities between ratified resolutions, the disenfranchisement is a much worse exploit of our voting system than anything that could be achieved by forcing partially-orthogonal options onto separate ballots. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
