Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Russ Allbery  wrote on 20/11/2021 at 19:04:07+0100:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at 
> 2021-11-20T19:04:07+0100 using RSA]]
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional
> mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General
> Resolution for vote:
>
> * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used
>   strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing
>   additional ballot options.
> * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the
>   vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other
>   ballot options.
> * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot
>   options is difficult to understand.
> * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General
>   Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may,
>   contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above
>   options they wish to reject.
>
> The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in
> the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002,
> which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected
> result.
>
> This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by
>
> * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution
>   process since they have different needs;
> * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is
>   ready to proceed to a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then
>   triggering a vote;
> * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the
>   vote is predictable;
> * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes;
> * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a
>   clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment;
> * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and
> * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary.
>
> It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for
> Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies
> responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General
> Resolution under point 4.2.1.
>
> Effect of the General Resolution
> 
>
> The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows.  This General Resolution
> requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> Section 4.2.4
> -
>
> Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader."  (A modified version of
> this provision is added to section A below.)  Add to the end of this
> point:
>
> The default option is "None of the above."
>
> Section 4.2.5
> -
>
> Replace "amendments" with "ballot options."
>
> Section 5.1.5
> -
>
> Replace in its entirety with:
>
> Propose General Resolutions and ballot options for General
> Resolutions.  When proposed by the Project Leader, sponsors for the
> General Resolution or ballot option are not required; see §4.2.1.
>
> Section 5.2.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Section 6.1.7
> -
>
> Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5".
>
> Add to the end of this point:
>
> There is no casting vote. If there are multiple options with no
> defeats in the Schwartz set at the end of A.5.8, the winner will be
> randomly chosen from those options, via a mechanism chosen by the
> Project Secretary.
>
> Section 6.3
> ---
>
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
>
> 1. Resolution process.
>
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
>
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
>
>2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional
>   ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they
>   proposed.
>
>3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn,
>   the process is canceled.
>
>4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the
>   ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but
>   if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to
>   calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is
>   canceled and has no effect.
>
>5. Two wee

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>   being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.

Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
decisions.

> Add a new paragraph to the start of 6.3.2 following "Details regarding
> voting":
> 
>Votes are decided by the vote counting mechanism described in
>section §A.5. The voting period lasts for one week or until the
>outcome is no longer in doubt assuming no members change their
>votes, whichever is shorter. Members may change their votes until
>the voting period ends. There is a quorum of two. The Chair has a
>casting vote. The default option is "Further discussion."

Same as above.

> Strike "The Chair has a casting vote." from the existing text and make the
> remaining text a separate, second paragraph.

I'm assuming the intention is to remove the duplication of "The Chair
has a casting vote", right? [That's what I understood, but textual
descriptions of text edits are challenging.]

Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?

Whoever has to modify the constitution at the end of this vote will
likely appreciate it.


-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>>   This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
>>   being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
>>   of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.

> Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> decisions.

This was discussed briefly earlier, and for whatever it's worth was
intentional.  My reasoning was that when the TC is asked to make a
decision, "None of the above" doesn't conclude that process.  In the TC
case, it does seem to really mean "further discussion" in the sense that
the TC hasn't resolved the issue in front of them and has to keep
discussing it.

That said, I don't feel strongly about this and can change this if folks
would prefer, particularly if TC members don't think that's the right way
to go.

>> Strike "The Chair has a casting vote." from the existing text and make
>> the remaining text a separate, second paragraph.

> I'm assuming the intention is to remove the duplication of "The Chair
> has a casting vote", right? [That's what I understood, but textual
> descriptions of text edits are challenging.]

Correct.

> Because of this (and others), can I suggest that the ballot option be
> specified as a wdiff to the existing constitution?

Is there a Git repository somewhere with the canonical copy of the
constitution that I an start from?  I assume it's somewhere in the
www.debian.org machinery, which is something I've never worked with before
and am not sure how to get at.

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