Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to its old form if the experiment were to fail. I don't understand: the motivation for my amendments is to avoid having yet another GR if the experiment were to fail... because if the experiment fails, that means we don't have a viable GR process, which means we're stuck and are responsible for running the project aground. I've been there, done that and want to avoid it here. If the experiment succeeds (GR-2Q or whatever works fine), then it needs another GR to make the increased seconding more permanent, but that's as trivial as a GR can be. The argument will be over and it'll be a simple evidence-based decision IMO. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of the other proposals. Eh, not the way I read that. But, well, this amendment as applied to the original proposal by Jorg. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or pretty much anything else we've not tried, while linking seconding to population size risks making the developers by way of a GR impotent, so let's keep a safeguard escape route. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Thanks for reading, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJy0AhmUY5euFC5vQRAkhRAJwMmC+lDbnRIJgQ21c/0gPKzMBiAQCgqSNj UlbqxzbAGBq9Nsl0VbVlXDg= =Tj36 -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: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. ... with signature -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ pgpjLQE3ikvQa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray wrote: Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to its old form if the experiment were to fail. 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: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded. What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of the other proposals. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) I thought the constitution was pretty obvious that DPL elections are not general resolutions (for example, 5.2. Appointment says The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution) but to be clear, how about adding under sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.6 (inclusive) of the current constitution after proposed in clause c? Or 4.1.2 to 4.1.7 but I feel appointing a secretary should be excluded if appointing a DPL is, because that's another automatically-triggered GR, although it's rarer. Thanks, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJykXhmUY5euFC5vQRAqofAJ0QP1AlzngRwt/5Rna0yL6J3tsWXgCeOZil YDvHq1Oeq0YzLAsZ3arq+eY= =vTuG -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: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? The missing bit for me was in a year from when? So I would clarify with: Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any general resolution receiving the required number of seconds, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. I would second that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? Ah, that wasn't clear, indeed. I read it as if no general resolution is voted on within the first year, but that's not what you meant. Alternative wording, hrm. Something like: If one year after the first proposed general resolution since this resolution is accepted no proposal has received the required number of seconds, this resolution expires (...) Would seem clearer; the in a year in your wording really isn't stating explicitly enough that it is meant to start after the first GR proposal. - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) I thought the constitution was pretty obvious that DPL elections are not general resolutions (for example, 5.2. Appointment says The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution) Hm, good point. but to be clear, how about adding under sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.6 (inclusive) of the current constitution after proposed in clause c? Something like that could work, although you're right that it isn't actually necessary. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. [...] Given that I feel the project's way of removing MIA developers is a bit random, a bit opaque and not an explicit part of the NM agreement, I think anything dependent on the actual number of Developers risks paralysing the democratic processes. Debian Membership should probably be addressed before increasing the GR requirements. Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal. Further, the discussion on debian-project in December asked for data http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00197.html and there's little available data to support the options in this GR. I think it's improper that the proposal did not link the discussion. Because there's little available data, I'm open to experimenting with this, but I think we need a safeguard to avoid paralysis. I think a so-called sunset expiry is a good idea. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I invite their supporters to accept this amendment. Otherwise, I ask for seconds for all three combinations. I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Hope that helps, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJx4JYmUY5euFC5vQRAkCtAJ9NHeYDTo9iK1naFzCWkgzvCHgqowCfc+r2 UL7jAjNUDckNaQhbeXcK19w= =L7mO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
