Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions

[Joerg Jaspert]

Hi,

I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000
Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there
should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with
something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work.

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. My personal
goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30
supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth
taking up time of everyone else.

Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December
told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal.

As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different
options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal
goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones
pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a "Keep it
like it is, no discusssion" is needed, I would accept such an amendment
too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still).

- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[   ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
[   ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
[   ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see
Constitution 4.1.2)

Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I
would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the
currently needed limit already. The more the better. :)

PROPOSAL START
========================================================================
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.

Therefore the Debian project resolves that
 a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
    a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
 b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
    as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
    period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
    developers to sponsor the resolution.
 c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

(Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
========================================================================
PROPOSAL END

Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,

 Current Developer Count = 1018
 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438
 K min(5, Q )           = 5
 Quorum  (3 x Q )       = 47.8591684006314

this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support
your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now),
considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and
uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not
too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the
amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or
a Delegate.

--
bye, Joerg
* libpng2 no libpng3 no why ? because no yes no yes no yes bullshit no yes
  no yes no yes stop ? no when someday beep beep beep beep (Closes: #157011)
 -- Christian Marillat <marillat@...>  Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:41:58 +0200

[Joerg Jaspert]

Hi,

and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
floor(Q) developers to second a GR.

PROPOSAL START
========================================================================
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.

Therefore the Debian project resolves that
 a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
    a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
 b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
    as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
    period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
    developers to sponsor the resolution.
 c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

(Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
========================================================================
PROPOSAL END

Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,

 Current Developer Count = 1018
 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438
 K min(5, Q )           = 5
 Quorum  (3 x Q )       = 47.8591684006314

this will mean that future GRs would need 15 other people to support
your idea.

--
bye, Joerg
Could you please add me to the mirrors@... alias. I'm not receiving
enough spam.
  -- Andrew Pollock

[Matthew Johnson-12]

On Sat Mar 21 15:49, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
 

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

I second this proposal

--
Matthew Johnson

[Charles Plessy-12]

Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.

That makes an interesting race condition with Bill's overriding GR…

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Charles Plessy-12]

Le Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:04:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> >  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
> >     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
> >     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
> >     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>
> That makes an interesting race condition with Bill's overriding GR…

Dear all, dear Joerg,

I present my apologise and ask you to forgive me this post. There are many
discussions going in all directions and I it frustrates me strongly, but I
should have keept my head cold and my hands far from the keyboard.

Have a nice week-end,

--
Charles


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

It would be nice if this also included the proposed changes to the
constitution as a diff.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Guilherme de S. Pastore-4]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
> smaller, I think it is no longer the case.

Perfectly agree.

> 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. My personal
> goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30
> supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth
> taking up time of everyone else.

I think this is a problem, though. Not that debating over an arbitrary
number is a good idea, but the number of developers as used for quorum
calculation is not a good reference, IMHO, for the sheer fact that the
DDs actually voting make up a rather small fraction of the total.

There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other
words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs
we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually
participate in the decision process.

--
Guilherme de S. Pastore
gpastore@...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bernd Zeimetz-4]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of
> floor(Q) developers to second a GR.
>
> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END
>
> Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had,
>
>  Current Developer Count = 1018
>  Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438
>  K min(5, Q )           = 5
>  Quorum  (3 x Q )       = 47.8591684006314
>
> this will mean that future GRs would need 15 other people to support
> your idea.
>

Seconded.


- --
 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknFFbsACgkQBnqtBMk7/3lbkwCfQeX4xVMe+qDmGDMt5W9wyRrj
SLYAn0AhYp1odc/zA57n1yHudTTs1wWI
=WVtl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Joerg Jaspert]

> There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there
> are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it
> is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do
> not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300
> to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other
> words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs
> we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually
> participate in the decision process.

There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
something like "take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
to calculate Q". That would be sick. And using the official DD count
does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define
something special now, in fear of "people wont vote".


--
bye, Joerg
NM-fun:
The Debian project,  at least for me,  is not a joke, [...]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Patrick Schoenfeld-3]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

I hereby second the before standing proposal. With some kind of sadness,
because if we wouldn't waste that much time on useless proposals
that I consider this a problem, I wouldn't.

Best Regards,
Patrick

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl-2]

Hi!

Joerg Jaspert schrieb:

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

I hereby second the proposal quoted above.


Best regards,
  Alexander

[Russ Allbery-2]

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@...> writes:

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

I agree that I would like to see a diff, ideally, but regardless,
seconded.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 21/03/09 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
> Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5
> supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote
> on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was
> smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000
> Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there
> should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with
> something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work.

I can't think of any vote in the (recent) past that shouldn't have
happened. Can you point at one?

> 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. My personal
> goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30
> supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth
> taking up time of everyone else.

I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This would
allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary, without being
restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could you add those to
your proposed resolution, so people can second all of them at the same
time and reduce the number of emails on -vote@?

> As the discussion in December also told us, we should vote on different
> options than just one, so I will also send in an amendment. My personal
> goal would be to end up with a vote having options similar to the ones
> pasted below as an example, but if someone feels like having a "Keep it
> like it is, no discusssion" is needed, I would accept such an amendment
> too. (Not that I think its neccessary, for me FD means that, but still).

I would like to have such an option as well.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@...   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@...             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Guilherme de S. Pastore-4]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:00:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write
> something like "take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election
> to calculate Q".

Neither would I. I was just pointing out that saying "20 out of 1000
should be easy" is only partially true, because it becomes "20 out of
400" if you consider the number of developers actually participating in
any kind of voting procedure.

It's not about creating a new number or basing the count on the last
vote, it's just about taking this into account before ammending the
constitution.

Cheers,

--
Guilherme de S. Pastore
gpastore@...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

I'm going to make suggestions for changes to both proposals here; just
change 2*floor(Q) to floor(Q) for the second alternative. Note that
I've switched from floor(2Q) to 2*floor(Q); this changes the majority
requirements from 31 to 30, which is what the extended rationale said
as an example.

Also, I don't believe that §4.2.3 is required if we're going to have
the same procedure for both voting procedure changes, ctte overrides,
and other general overrides

Finally, I've modified the language of §4.2.2 slightly to make it
clear that the proposal needs to explicitly say that it puts the
delegate's decision on hold to avoid any need for the secretary to
have to interpret whether it does or does not.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]

a) §4.2.1 is changed to read:

The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and
sponsored by at least 2*floor(Q) other Developers, or if proposed by
the Project Leader or the Technical Committee.


>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.

b) §4.2.2 is changed to read:

When a resolution has been sponsored by at least floor(Q) Developers,
or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts
the decision immediately on hold, provided that resolution itself says
that it will put the decision on hold immediately.

c) §4.2.3 is deleted.

>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

d) §4.2.7 is changed to read:

Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
floor(Q) is the nearest integer less than or equal to Q. 2*floor(Q) is
two times floor(Q). Q need not be an integer and is not rounded.

e) §4.2 is renumbered to remain in sequence.


Don Armstrong

--
Vimes hated and despised the privileges of rank, but they had this to
be said for them: At least they meant that you could hate and despise
them in comfort.
 -- Terry Pratchett _The Fifth Elephant_ p111

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Mark Hymers-3]

On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert spoke thus..

> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [   ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
> [   ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
> [   ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see
> Constitution 4.1.2)
>
> Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I
> would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the
> currently needed limit already. The more the better. :)
>
> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded.

Mark

--
Mark Hymers <mhy at debian dot org>

"Irish police are being handicapped in a search for a stolen van, because
 they cannot issue a description. It's a special branch vehicle, and they
 don't want the public to know what it looks like."
     The Guardian

[Martín Ferrari-2]

On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>     a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

I second this proposal

[Kartik Mistry-3]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@...> wrote:

> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [   ] Choice 1: Enhance seconders to 2Q [3:1]
> [   ] Choice 2: Enhance seconders to Q [3:1]
> [   ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> As this will change the constitution it will need a 3:1 to win. (see
> Constitution 4.1.2)
>
> Of course, this being a proposal to enhance the required seconds, I
> would love if many people do second this, even if we might be past the
> currently needed limit already. The more the better. :)
>
> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.
>
> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
>  a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>    a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>    as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>    period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>    developers to sponsor the resolution.
>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>
> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END

Seconded!

--
 Cheers,
 Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
 Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com
 Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com

[Andreas Metzler-4]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <87vdq3gcf6.fsf@...> (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
> PROPOSAL START
> ========================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initiate one are too small.

> Therefore the Debian project resolves that
> a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
>    a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)]
> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>    as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>    period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>    developers to sponsor the resolution.
> c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

> (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
> ========================================================================
> PROPOSAL END
[...]

seconded.

cu andreas
- --
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknGMWMACgkQHTOcZYuNdmPwigCeOOBGy9M/dNDD51OcyVxzbAan
skkAnRxnFLrE8BL/zRs3RVONPU8KISGe
=dn7D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Neil McGovern]

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment:

AMENDMENT START
========================================================================
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to initiate one are too small.

Therefore the Debian project resolves that
 a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor
    a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)]
 b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
    as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
    period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(2Q)
    developers to sponsor the resolution.
 c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]

(Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution).
========================================================================
AMENDMENT END

Rationale: This is basically s/K/Q/. It keeps the 'immediate override
delegate decision' as twice as hard as proposing a GR.

Thanks,
Neil
--
< linuxpoet> rails is a perversion
< mc> someone who use pgsql as calculator shouldnt talk of perversion.