General Resolution: Project membership procedures
- Time Line
- Proposer
- Seconds
- Text
- Amendment Proposer A
- Amendment Seconds A
- Amendment Text A
- Amendment Proposer B
- Amendment Seconds B
- Amendment Text B
- Quorum
- Data and Statistics
- Majority Requirement
- Outcome
Time Line
Proposal and amendment | Friday, 24th October, 2008 | Wednesday, 29th October, 2008 |
---|---|---|
Discussion Period: | Wednesday, 29th October, 2008 | Wednesday, 26th November, 2008 |
Voting Period | 00:00:01 UTC on Monday, 8th Dec, 2008 | 23:59:59 UTC on Sunday, 14th Dec, 2008 |
Proposer
Charles Plessy
[plessy@debian.org]
[20081025011055.GA10094@kunpuu.plessy.org]
Please note, the finalised text of the proposal is an accepted amendment from Peter Palfrader [weasel@debian.org]. See [20081029200151.GA29944@intrepid.palfrader.org] and
[20081030001856.GA5202@plessy.org]
Seconds
- MJ Ray [mjr@debian.org]
- Robert Millan [rmh@debian.org]
- Bas Zoetekouw [bas@debian.org]
- Frans Pop [fjp@debian.org]
- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre [amaya@debian.org]
- Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org]
- Bastian Blank [waldi@debian.org]
- Jurij Smakov [jurij@debian.org]
- Rémi Vanicat [vanicat@debian.org]
- Philipp Kern [pkern@debian.org]
- Luca Filipozzi [lfilipoz@debian.org]
- Pierre Habouzit [madcoder@debian.org]
- Colin Tuckley [colint@debian.org]
- Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [he@debian.org]
- Raphaël Hertzog [hertzog@debian.org]
- Patrick Schoenfeld [schoenfeld@debian.org]
- Cyril Brulebois [kibi@debian.org]
- Philipp Kern [pkern@debian.org]
- Alexander Schmehl [tolimar@debian.org]
- Nico Golde [nion@debian.org]
- Andreas Barth [aba@debian.org]
Text
The actual text of the resolution is as follows. Please note that this does not include preludes, prologues, any preambles to the resolution, post-ambles to the resolution, abstracts, fore-words, after-words, rationales, supporting documents, opinion polls, arguments for and against, and any of the other important material you will find on the mailing list archives. Please read the debian-vote mailing list archives for details.
Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal.
The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not provided by the project with as much help as might be possible, useful or required, nor opportunities to join the project.
We thank Jörg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve contributors more closely with and within the project so that they can get both recognition and the necessary tools to do their work.
We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large part of our community. We invite the DAM and all the contributors to further develop their ideas in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future.
Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus within the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a general resolution.
Amendment Proposer A
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org] [<20081102142205.GA16498@xanadu.blop.info>]
Amendment Seconds A
- Damyan Ivanov [dmn@debian.org]
- Matthew Johnson [mjj29@debian.org]
- Stefano Zacchiroli [zack@debian.org]
- Margarita Manterola [marga@debian.org]
- Raphaël Hertzog [hertzog@debian.org]
Amendment Text A
Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.
The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks the Debian Account Managers to postpone the implementation of the changes described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: <878wsgmi1j.fsf@vorlon.ganneff.de>) about "Developer Status", until there is consensus on a proposal, or a vote to define the proposal that should be implemented.
Amendment Proposer B
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org] [<20081102142205.GA16498@xanadu.blop.info>]
Amendment Seconds B
- Damyan Ivanov [dmn@debian.org]
- Matthew Johnson [mjj29@debian.org]
- Stefano Zacchiroli [zack@debian.org]
- Margarita Manterola [marga@debian.org]
- Raphaël Hertzog [hertzog@debian.org]
Amendment Text B
Choice 3: Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.
The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, asks the Debian Account Managers to start the implementation of the changes described on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: <878wsgmi1j.fsf@vorlon.ganneff.de>) about "Developer Status".
Quorum
With the current list of voting developers, we have:
Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314
Quorum
- Option1 Reached quorum: 211 > 47.8591684006314
- Option2 Reached quorum: 209 > 47.8591684006314
- Option3 Reached quorum: 88 > 47.8591684006314
Data and Statistics
For this GR, as always statistics shall be gathered about ballots received and acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting period. Additionally, the list of voters would be made publicly available. Also, the tally sheet may also be viewed after to voting is done (Note that while the vote is in progress it is a dummy tally sheet).
Majority Requirement
All the amendments need simple majority
Majority
- Option1 passes Majority. 4.489 (211/47) >= 1
- Option2 passes Majority. 4.265 (209/49) >= 1
- Dropping Option3 because of Majority. 0.509 (88/173) <= 1
Outcome
In the graph above, any pink colored nodes imply that the option did not pass majority, the Blue is the winner. The Octagon is used for the options that did not beat the default.
- Option 1 "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus."
- Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal."
- Option 3 "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes."
- Option 4 "Further Discussion"
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that option x received over option y. A more detailed explanation of the beat matrix may help in understanding the table. For understanding the Condorcet method, the Wikipedia entry is fairly informative.
Option | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Option 1 | 112 | 195 | 211 | |
Option 2 | 125 | 194 | 209 | |
Option 3 | 71 | 65 | 88 | |
Option 4 | 47 | 49 | 173 |
Looking at row 2, column 1, Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal.
received 125 votes over Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.
Looking at row 1, column 2, Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.
received 112 votes over Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal.
Pair-wise defeats
- Option 2 defeats Option 1 by ( 125 - 112) = 13 votes.
- Option 1 defeats Option 4 by ( 211 - 47) = 164 votes.
- Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 209 - 49) = 160 votes.
The Schwartz Set contains
- Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal."
The winner
- Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal."
Debian uses the Condorcet method for voting.
Simplistically, plain Condorcets method
can be stated like so :
Consider all possible two-way races between candidates.
The Condorcet winner, if there is one, is the one
candidate who can beat each other candidate in a two-way
race with that candidate.
The problem is that in complex elections, there may well
be a circular relationship in which A beats B, B beats C,
and C beats A. Most of the variations on Condorcet use
various means of resolving the tie. See
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping
for details. Debian's variation is spelled out in the
constitution,
specifically, A.6.
Neil McGovern