Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution:
>
>   A.5. Expiry
>
>If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
>otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
>that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of
>the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.
>
>
> I'm just not sure when that 4 weeks start.  The discussion period
> is now over, so I could do it 4 weeks from now.  I could also
> interprete it to start from the last discussion on the list which
> seems to be March 27.

I don't think the Expiry clause deals with the minimum discussion
period, but actual discussion (note the wording "discussed"). Thus,
the four week period starts with the last actual -vote post on the
subject matter, in this case currently March 27.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project. [...]
> > I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
> > option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
> > takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
> > (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
> > proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)
> 
> So according to the vote.d.o page, the minimum discussion period's done
> and a vote could be called for anytime... But there seems to only be 9
> seconds for the proposals to require Q/2Q seconds, which is presumably
> 6 or 21 less than would indicate they're actually feasible...

I think they would actually be 6 / 22 short.  Q being 15.91 makes 2Q
31.82.  So floor(Q) is 15, floor(2Q) is 31.

Don suggested wording to change it to 2*floor(Q), but I think 
nobody commented on that.

I'm not sure if someone who seconded one of the first two options
would like to call for vote because they didn't reach number of
seconds they would like to see.  I can only suggest them to try
and get more seconds.  And I see no reason why someone who
seconded the 3rd option would need to call for vote.

Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution:

  A.5. Expiry

   If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
   otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
   that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of
   the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.


I'm just not sure when that 4 weeks start.  The discussion period
is now over, so I could do it 4 weeks from now.  I could also
interprete it to start from the last discussion on the list which
seems to be March 27.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. [...]
> I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
> option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
> takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
> (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
> proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)

So according to the vote.d.o page, the minimum discussion period's done
and a vote could be called for anytime... But there seems to only be 9
seconds for the proposals to require Q/2Q seconds, which is presumably
6 or 21 less than would indicate they're actually feasible...

Cheers,
aj


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Robert Millan]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> 
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

I second this.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what 
> this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote 
> for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder 
> rather than facilitating it.

I'm saying it happens, and I'd rather not have a vote go the wrong way
because the only names the voters recognized were on the wrong side of the
issue. :P

-- 
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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
>> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the
>> highest number of seconds win?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I
> recommend to the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to get
> three times the numbers of seconds compared to the status quo amendment,
> that I hereby second.
 
OTOH, getting loads (say 30) seconds for _this_ option could be construed 
as an argument *for* the change proposed by Joerg, which would be rather 
counterproductive :-P


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
>> minimum support for an opinion.
> 
> It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
> support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote.  Many voters
> don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
> detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage
> that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text.

Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what 
this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote 
for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder 
rather than facilitating it.
IMHO the only thing that's important is _that_ a proposal got sufficient 
seconds, not _who_ seconded it. (Of course the secretary should be able 
to show this, but that's covered.)

However, there are variations possible. For example:
- during the period before the vote opens: register all seconds, but only
  publish whether or not the number required has been reached;
- when the vote is opened: list the complete list of seconders as now.

That would still help get cleaner discussion threads and reduces any 
skewing of the vote by a group of DDs boosting a particular option by all 
sending in their seconds at that point.

Personally I really do find otherwise empty seconds on the list 
distracting. I'd much rather see people actually contributing to the 
discussion by explaining their rationale and keep the seconds separate.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.

-- 
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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:17:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
>support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote.  Many voters
>don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
>detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o
>webpage that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:28:09PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>it's not a statement that the person prefers that option above all
>others;

For me, it's a statement as explained by Steve Langasek.

-- 
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist
due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too
important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
Henry Kissinger on Chile prior to the overthrow and violent death of
Salvador Allende.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Ben Finney]

Frans Pop  writes:

> Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence 
> with "Fun!" to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on, 
> you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you […]

> Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my English (I 
> have a nice 1700 page Collins Cobuild here; should keep me occupied for a 
> couple of hours).

Your English is so good that I thought your interjection of “Fun!”
was deliberate sarcasm, with the rest being serious :-)

-- 
 \   “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses |
  `\over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and |
_o__)its speaker a raving lunatic.” —Dresden James |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Ben Finney wrote:
> A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
> prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
> person prefers that option to appear on the ballot.

Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence 
with "Fun!" to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on, 
you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you:

! Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
! minimum support for an opinion.

Though on reflection maybe "low-level" is not the term I was looking for 
there. I meant to say basic or rough. And "minimum" should maybe have 
been "minimal".
Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my English (I 
have a nice 1700 page Collins Cobuild here; should keep me occupied for a 
couple of hours).

Cheers,
FJP


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Ben Finney]

Frans Pop  writes:

> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the
> highest number of seconds win [1]?

A second is not a vote. That is, it's not a statement that the person
prefers that option above all others; it's merely a statement that the
person prefers that option to appear on the ballot.

-- 
 \ “Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end.” —Igor |
  `\   Stravinskey |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Russ Allbery]

Frans Pop  writes:

> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
> number of seconds win [1]?

One of the primary objections to this proposal is that it will be too hard
to get the new required number of seconds.  It seems quite reasonable to
put that objection to the test.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Charles Plessy]

Le Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
> 
> Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
> number of seconds win?

That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a supermajority vote, I recommend to
the proposer to drop the GR if he does not manage to get three times the numbers
of seconds compared to the status quo amendment, that I hereby second.

> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Have a nice day

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:

> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
> minimum support for an opinion.

It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote.  Many voters don't
follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in detail, but
the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage that lists all
the seconds right next to the amendment text.

-- 
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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

> Seconded!
>
> I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already.

Fun! Maybe we should just dispense with the voting and just let the highest
number of seconds win [1]?

/me also watches Kurt scrambling to keep up with the amendmends, seconds
and rescinds and would like to note that he seems to be doing an excellent
job, but worries that he might run out of steam a bit at some point :-)

Cheers,
FJP

[1] That in itself is IMO an argument against requiring too many seconds,
aside from the fact that it tends to reduce the readability of the actual
discussion, especially when it is read from the archives later by people
not following it as it happens.

Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
minimum support for an opinion.

It might be a good idea to implement a different mechanism (more like the
way the vote itself is done) to gather seconds. One that automatically
ignores any superfluous seconds after the required number has been reached.
That would make for a cleaner separation between discussion and seconding.

It would require the secretary to accept a proposed amendmend and "open"
it for seconding by assigning an identifier. That would also allow for
a basic quality check before seconds are received.

Something like
   mail -s "Second: GR X amendmend Y" seco...@vote.debian.org
With confirmation mail (including longer description) and option to
retract of course.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>=
>General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
>Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
>discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
>changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
>will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
>general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
>imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
>
>Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
>sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
>of delegates.
>=

Seconded!

I know it has been seconded by 5 other DDs already.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Bill Allombert]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> 
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.

Since this amendment is much cleaner and appears to have more
support, I will gladly rescind mine.

I would like to thanks Lucas for his effort.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26:59AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > PROPOSAL START
> > > =
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> > > discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> > > changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> > > will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> > > general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> > > imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> > > 
> > > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> > > sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> > > of delegates.
> > > =
> > > PROPOSAL END
> > 
> > Seconded.
> > 
> > I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
> > option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
> > takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
> > (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
> > proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)
> 
> It's now at:
> 2Q: 9
> Q: 7
> Keep current: 7

To be complete, there is also:
- Bill Allombert's simular proposal with 1 second.
- MJ Ray's proposal about the expiry-on-failure with 1 second
- Neil McGovern's s/K/Q/ with 1 second


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > PROPOSAL START
> > =
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> > discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> > changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> > will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> > general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> > imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> > 
> > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> > sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> > of delegates.
> > =
> > PROPOSAL END
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
> option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
> takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
> (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
> proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)

It's now at:
2Q: 9
Q: 7
Keep current: 7

I've commited 9/7/5 a few hours ago, but there is a delay before
the pages get regenerated.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Ian Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Lucas Nussbaum writes ("[Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR 
sponsoring"):
> I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
> to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two "keep
> things as is" options on the ballot).

I hereby second Lucas's amendment.

Ian.

> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBScq0xsMWjroj9a3bAQLo7gP+IVG9v0C5Nh4SR9+/9NnZHqmndk+V5ocZ
H5WFM0TC3yjl2tCVHxEMCvw6IWJS4kKL4WwCDaH/I9XJ4bNAa8V/Fg3E82Bbdzrh
68TUr8urO7kUZwh5ZFs5wOLUZKlqTaAPKe0wTLU6GSThptHix9yLA23F4E6dxlGd
c/Dk1EwwDxM=
=kIlY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.

I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
(From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:25:34PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum  writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> > 
> > PROPOSAL START
> > =
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> > discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> > changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> > will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> > general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> > imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> > 
> > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> > sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> > of delegates.
> > =
> > PROPOSAL END
> 
> I second this.

Please sign the message.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Wouter Verhelst]

Not that it makes much difference to 'further discussion', but:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

I second this proposal.

I have felt more positive about the whole idea of increasing sponsorship
requirements in the past, but as time has gone on, I now feel that it
does not really make much sense anymore.

The main argument for increasing the sponsorship requirement seems to be
"there is too much politics in Debian, so let's make it harder to start
a vote". That argument is flawed, for multiple reasons:
- Making it harder to vote isn't going to change people's opinions on
  controversial subjects. If a person feels that his opinion is in line
  with the project's core ideals, there are other people who feel
  differently, but not enough people who care enough to second a vote on
  the subject, then this will *not* cause them to stop talking about the
  subject.
  Me, I prefer to have a vote on a subject (so that a consensus is
  known, even if not necessarily liked by everyone) rather than have to
  listen to people talking about the same subject over and over and over
  and over and over and over and over again. I'm quite sure most people
  in the project agree on that bit, since we've kicked people out for
  precisely that reason.
- Like it or not, in some regards Debian actually *is* a political
  organization. We've come up with a number of documents that have
  helped shape the Open Source/Free Software landscape, such as the
  DFSG/Open Source definition, our Social Contract (which Gentoo based
  theirs on[1]); we've taken a position on matters such as the GFDL and
  the Mozilla trademark policy which were not always in line with the
  rest of the FLOSS world, but which have since come to be accepted by
  many people unrelated to Debian. Ignoring that fact because we don't
  like voting as much as we like hacking isn't going to change it, nor
  make it go away.
- There is no proof that any change in sponsorship requirements is going
  to actually improve things. I find this kind of thing to be extremely
  dangerous; it has the potential to ruin our entire GR procedure (if it
  does turn out to be too high a number in practice) for a stated
  benefit that it may even fail to produce.

Additionally, there is the point of amendments; while it could perhaps
be a good thing to discourage starting the GR procedure, the same most
certainly is not true for amendments. If a vote has been taken,
reverting it is going to be almost impossible[2]; so it had better be
clear and complete to start with. Making it harder to propose amendments
is counter to that goal.

A suggestion was made in the thread that would increase the seconders
requirement to start a vote, but that would not increase the requirement
for amendments. This, I believe, will also not work.

It requires us to make a clear distinction between a 'GR proposal' and
an 'amendment'. Currently, they're mostly the same thing. If we make it
clearly separate things, where it would be easier to do an amendment
than it is to do a vote, that would make it attractive to craft what is
really a GR proposal in such a way that it could be seen as an amendment
to an already-existing vote. If the text of a proposed amendment only
tangentially relates to the original text which it claims to amend, is
it then still an amendment or should it be considered a vote in its own
right?

That doesn't even have to be done on purpose; sometimes you could think
in good faith that a particular statement is related to an
already-existing vote, but then find that you're alone with that
opinion. What's going to have to be done with that? These may seem
trivial questions for now, but they're going to be very hard questions
to answer once we're actually talking about a proposed vote and emotions
are running high.

Moreover, I find that the Debian GR procedure actually is a great way to
build consensus. The GFDL debate is an excellent example of that; it
took us two votes (if you don't count 2004_004) and several years, but
we've gone from a general feeling of "The GFDL is from GNU, so it must
be free" to a stated and clear con

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Matthew Vernon]

Lucas Nussbaum  writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> 
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

I second this.

> Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was "enhanced" with
> s/Enhance/Change/.

This also - the current GR title has an unfortunate air of not being
entirely neutral.

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Julien BLACHE]

Lucas Nussbaum  wrote:

Hi,

> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
>
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

I hereby second this amendment.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -  
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


pgp0ZjDzTrwsh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> > entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> > 
> > PROPOSAL START
> > =
> > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> > discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> > changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> > will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> > general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> > imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> > 
> > Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> > sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> > of delegates.
> > =
> > PROPOSAL END
> 
> Since nobody sponsored it yet, I'm amending it to fix:
> s/arised/arisen/
> s/those years/the years/

The constitution even covers such changes: A.1.:
6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
   errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
   changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
   within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is not
   restarted.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Since nobody sponsored it yet,

Actually, someone did, but:

> I'm amending it to fix:
> s/arised/arisen/
> s/those years/the years/

Under A.1.6, you can fix spelling and grammar without having to re-solicit
seconds.

-- 
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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
> 
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Since nobody sponsored it yet, I'm amending it to fix:
s/arised/arisen/
s/those years/the years/

PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over the years, some problems have arisen during the
discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.

Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
of delegates.
=
PROPOSAL END

Maybe we should make it mandatory to ask for review from a native
speaker before submitting a GR or an amendment? :-)

> This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral "keep things as is"
> option. I believe that we need to provide basic information about why we
> are voting this, hence the first paragraph, which, I hope, is vague
> enough ("might", etc) not to prevent anyone from sponsoring or voting
> for this option.
> 
> I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
> to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two "keep
> things as is" options on the ballot).
> 
> Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was "enhanced" with
> s/Enhance/Change/.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Frans Pop]

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
> =
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
> 
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.
 
> This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral "keep things as is"
> option.

Thanks Lucas.

> Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was "enhanced" with
> s/Enhance/Change/.

Agreed. And the same for the ballot options proposed in the initial mail.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Hi,

I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".

PROPOSAL START
=
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
will help solve those problems.  Instead, by making it harder to propose
general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.

Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
of delegates.
=
PROPOSAL END

This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral "keep things as is"
option. I believe that we need to provide basic information about why we
are voting this, hence the first paragraph, which, I hope, is vague
enough ("might", etc) not to prevent anyone from sponsoring or voting
for this option.

I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two "keep
things as is" options on the ballot).

Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was "enhanced" with
s/Enhance/Change/.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature