First off, thank you for working on this! On 9/27/21 8:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
6. If voting is started prior to two weeks after the original proposal
via a call for a vote by a member of the Technical Committee, but
another member of the Technical Committee objects more than two
weeks after the original proposal but before the vote completes, the
vote is still canceled. All members of the Technical Committee are
then given 24 hours to add new ballot options or modify or withdraw
the ballot options they have proposed. During this period no one may
call for a vote. Following that 24 hour period, a new voting period
automatically starts and cannot be canceled.
Is this complexity necessary? If the vote was not called early, the vote would have started anyway on time and been uncancellable. And the objector did not object in time. (If the objector had objected prior to the normal starting time, we aren't in this scenario.) Why does someone get extra time to object in this case?
2. Details regarding voting.
When the Technical Committee votes whether to override a Developer who
also happens to be a member of the Committee, that member may not vote
(unless they are the Chair, in which case they may use only their
casting vote).
I know this is how it is now. But it's always seemed weird. If TC members cannot vote on overruling themselves, why does the chair get to (but only in the event of a tie)?
Is this even meaningful? Presumably they would vote against overruling themselves, if there are such options. But it seems that if they don't vote, the measure would fail anyway? Or is this more about them choosing between multiple options (possibly all of which overrule themselves)?
1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement have a
1:1 majority requirement. The default option must not have any
supermajority requirements.
"must not" or "does not"?
2. The votes are counted according to the rules in A.6. The default option
is "None of the above," unless specified otherwise.
This "None of the above" seems duplicative of the one above. Do we need both?
When the vote counting mechanism of the Standard Resolution Procedure is to be used, the text which refers to it must specify who has a casting vote, the quorum, the default option, and any supermajority requirement.
Maybe the "The default option must not have any supermajority requirements." should be moved here?
-- Richard
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
