Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > > In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just > > to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential > > options before they have any chance of building consensus and others > > will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts; > > also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people. > > You wont need Q, 2Q, Q^1024 people to start a discussion period. > This whole thread didnt need a single second to run like it is, usually > all our flames don't need them. > Yes, this is not the formal discussion period, but if you fear you wont > get enough seconds, or might not be sure its the best to do, going the > way I did with this seems to be ok, and able to draw attention from > people.
There's not a discussion period and a "formal" discussion period. There's *the* discussion period and a bunch of DDs shooting the breeze like this. Many DDs ignore -project and even most stuff on -vote unless/until it looks likely to get enough seconds, don't they? > Of course I do defend what I want. Yet, I still read and keep in mind > what others think. OK, thanks. I hope no-one minds, but it didn't read like that yet. > > Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:- > > 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive; > > I did justify it. "If you cant find 30 people out of 1000 that are in > the project, why bother 1000 to vote on it?". Why 30? Why not 130? Why not 300? The particular number is unjustified. I'm not good at interpreting complex constitutions, but I think a GR could pass with (3Q/2)+1 votes preferring it to Further Discussion. Requiring more seconds than votes in support seems a bit unusual, to put it mildly. Is there any other voting system that has that? > > 3. it favours organised campaign groups who gather in secret before > > springing discussion on debian lists; > > Umm. If you think so. I do, based on what I've seen of other groups. Raising the number of required seconds too high would give a strong incentive for something like political parties to form within the debian project (you support my manifesto and I'll support yours - that sort of thing) and I think that could cause *really* harmful divisions. What about the other two concerns: the obvious spoiler effect; and defending proposals during the discussion period? > > I'd welcome other examples, particularly if the minimum is equivalent > > to anything like the 30 or 60 in the original proposal. > > Which 60? Its 30 (2Q) or its 15 (Q) what seems to be wanted. I assumed that where 2K is currently (4.2.2.2), it would become 4Q (because K becomes 2Q in general, and Q only for the number of sponsors of Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL). I see that's not at all clear in the proposal - sorry for my confusion. Could you please repost http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/12/msg00503.html as a proper patch to the constitution (wdiff or whatever), to avoid this sort of confusion? > So you think if something is clearly found to be a mistake at some > point, the DDs wouldnt be able to admit it and revert it? It *only* > takes 30 people to start that. I think that:- *if* requiring 30 seconds is a mistake in general *then* requiring 30 seconds to revert it is also a mistake. Could we have a limited-time trial first? Because:- *if* requiring 30 seconds works well *then* requiring 30 seconds to make it permanent won't be a problem. Won't it? Thanks, -- 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-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
