Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
- Time Line
- Proposal A Proposer
- Proposal A Seconds
- Proposal B Proposer
- Proposal B Seconds
- Proposal C Proposer
- Proposal C Seconds
- Proposal A
- Proposal B
- Proposal C
- Quorum
- Majority Requirement
- Data and Statistics
- Outcome
Time Line
Proposed: September 29th, 2003
Discussion Starts: Tue Sep 30 23:59:59 UTC 2003
Call For votes : Thu Oct 16 00:00:00 UTC
Voting Ends: Wed Oct 29 23:59:59 UTC 2003
Proposal A Proposer
Manoj Srivastava [srivasta@debian.org]
Proposal A Seconds
- Andrew Suffield [asuffield@debian.org]
- Neil Roeth [neil@debian.org]
- Steve Langasek [vorlon@debian.org]
- Matthias Urlichs [smurf@debian.org]
- Joe Nahmias [jello@debian.org]
- Simon Law [sfllaw@debian.org]
Proposal B Proposer
Branden Robinson [branden@debian.org]
Proposal B Seconds
- Bob Hilliard [hilliard@debian.org]
- Richard Braakman [dark@debian.org]
- Andrew Suffield [asuffield@debian.org]
- John H. Robinson, IV [jaqque@debian.org]
- Steve Langasek [vorlon@debian.org]
- Jochen Voss [voss@debian.org]
Proposal C Proposer
Branden Robinson [branden@debian.org]
Proposal C Seconds
- Manoj Srivastava [srivasta@debian.org]
- John H. Robinson, IV [jaqque@debian.org]
- Remi Vanicat [vanicat@debian.org]
- Andrew Suffield [asuffield@debian.org]
- Joe Nahmias [jello@debian.org]
- Simon Law [sfllaw@debian.org]
Proposal A
Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG.
The actual text of the proposal A is:
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
+ Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about changing non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys. An assumption of this proposal is that
the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines are
distinct works.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________
Proposal B
Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents.
The actual text of the Proposal B is:
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5. Issue, withdraw, and supersede nontechnical policy documents
+ and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
+ the project, its relationship with other free software entities,
+ and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence
+ terms that Debian software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about changing non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________
Proposal C
Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
The actual text of the Proposal C is:
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian
+ Social Contract".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social
Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish
to extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. An
assumption of this proposal is that the Debian Social Contract and
Debian Free Software Guidelines are distinct works.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________
Quorum
With 928 developers, we have:
Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.2315462117278 K ( 3 x Q ) = 45.6946386351835 Option 1 Reached quorum: 198> 45.6946386351835 Option 2 Reached quorum: 164> 45.6946386351835 Option 3 Reached quorum: 158> 45.6946386351835
Majority Requirement
All three of these proposals require a 3:1 majority, since they modify the constitution.
Option 1 passes Majority. 5.500 (198/36)> 3 Dropping Option 2 because of Majority. 2.733 (164/60) < 3 Dropping Option 3 because of Majority. 2.324 (158/68) < 3
Data and Statistics
Some statistics have been gathered about ballots and acknowledgements periodically during the voting period. Additionally, the list of people who have voted is available. The tally sheet is also present.
Outcome
The winner is: Option 1 Proposal A [3:1 majority needed]
In the graph above, the pink colored options did not pass majority, the Blue is the winner. 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 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Default | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1 | 162 | 162 | 198 | |
| Option 2 | 67 | 80 | 164 | |
| Option 3 | 63 | 134 | 158 | |
| Default | 36 | 60 | 68 |
Option 1 defeats Option 2 by 95
Option 1 defeats Option 3 by 99
Option 1 defeats Option 4 by 162
Option 3 defeats Option 2 by 54
Option 2 defeats Option 4 by 104
Option 3 defeats Option 4 by 90
Manoj Srivastava