• Ways forward regarding the RMS GR

    From Jonathan Carter@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 12 12:20:01 2021
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --pC2TqtHjO5M2xl5puyzrS20Qf8MMDaMyV
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Language: en-US
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Hi Debian Developers

    Over the course of the last few days, I've received many mails regarding
    the RMS GR, both on this list, on debian-private and in private. These
    mails contain a wide spectrum of concerns and even ideas on how to
    improve our situation, each of which come with their own set of upsides
    and downsides.

    There's been wide acknowledgement within our community that our GR
    process isn't perfect, and there's been some good ideas already that
    could help improve it, some might even need GRs themselves to update our constitution towards a better GR and/or voting/polling process. In this particular case, I feel that the process is more than just imperfect,
    and that it may be failing us. While it's premature to do a full
    postmortem on this GR, it's already clear where some cracks have formed
    early on.

    Initially, the RMS open letter[1] contained a list of individuals
    supporting the removal of RMS and the existing FSF board from their
    positions there. Soon after, some organisations were added and the list
    of organisations grew quite fast, begging the question for some: Should
    Debian also sign this letter?

    [1] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/

    At this stage, many Debian Developers (including myself) have signed the letter. I felt that this was both sufficient in terms of a Debian
    presence there, and in terms of what needed to be achieved with such a
    letter. While I'm not scared of making a unilateral statement on behalf
    of the project when needed, at the time, I just didn't feel it would be appropriate for the DPL to unilaterally add Debian to the list of
    organisations there.

    Members within the project felt that we should represent Debian on that
    letter more formally, and whether it's the best tool or not, the only
    tool that we do have for that is the GR process, and it didn't take long
    for the initial proposal[2] to be sent and be seconded[3].

    [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00083.html
    [3] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#proposer

    Now, I know and acknowledge that the circumstances we find ourselves in
    here are a bit extraordinary, but, even within that context, what
    happened here so far was perfectly in accordance with our constitution
    and the processes it mandates. The project members who wanted to ratify
    the letter followed the exact procedure they were supposed to.

    Although, this is also when the cracks start appearing. It seems that in
    both this vote, and some previous GRs that have happened, it seemed that
    a lack of metadata on the GR has hurt us.

    In this case, what we're voting on has seemingly subtly, but
    significantly changed since the initial proposal.

    Initially, the question that the original GR proposal raised was more or
    less binary in form. It basically asked, "Should we as a project sign
    this letter?", which ultimately, can only end up as a yes or no option.
    I say "more or less" binary, because of course, it ends up being more complicated than that. If that option ran by itself, we'd end up with an
    option on the ballot for the affirmative of the GR and for FD (Further discussion), which in itself causes some problems, since some might
    literally want further discussion on the topic, while it is also
    typically used as a "None of the above" option in votes with many options.

    I was comfortable reducing the discussion period on the vote, especially
    since the question it poses is relatively simple (even though it might
    be a difficult choice for some to make). I thought that there might have
    been another option proposed option for the GR, so that the votes would
    extend to the equivalent of "yes/no/FD", but didn't quite expect that
    there would be additional proposals that would change the nature of the GR.

    So to recap, initially the GR proposal was to ratify the RMS open
    letter, which is basically (albeit with caveats) a yes/no question. With
    the addition of more proposals, the question that the original poster
    was asking, "Should we signed this open letter" changed to a much
    broader question of "What should our public position on RMS be?". It
    might sound like a subtle difference, but it's really an entirely
    different kind of vote that may need a different kind of discussion
    period and even a different level of timeliness. At this point, I'd like
    to state that I'm not blaming any individual involved with this GR
    whatsoever, for the most part, everyone did what they were supposed to
    do or what they could do to get their voices heard, my problem is that
    this process is really a clumsy fit when it comes to nearly any decision
    other than constitutional changes or a DPL election.

    The privacy aspect has brought another dimension to the problem. There
    are concerns that some might not vote because this vote will be public,
    and might open themselves up to further real-world harassment.
    Unfortunately, our constitution doesn't seem to provide us with any
    tools to deal with this, I don't think the authors at the time could
    have anticipated the current social climate in the world and on the
    Internet. Some people have called for this vote to be made private, and
    while I 100% support that, it seems unclear if that's possible in time.
    I'm in support of the secretary changing the vote to a secret vote,
    although the secretary has indicated in private that he'd only be
    willing to make such a change if there is consensus for that, which may
    prove difficult in the remaining time that we have in this vote.

    If the vote were to change to a private vote, it has also been pointed
    out that it might change how some people would like to vote in this GR.
    In the case that this vote would be turned into a private vote, I would
    urge the secretary to extend the voting period by 72 hours and send an
    initial announcement about the change, and then another reminder at the
    start of the 72 hour period in addition to the usual vote reminders that
    are sent.

    Having said all of the above, our voting stats are public, and at the
    time of writing, 327[4] people have voted for the DPL election (a
    private vote) while 293[5] people have voted for the RMS GR. So even
    though a significant people who could make a difference in terms of our
    voting population haven't voted, at the same time, it's also a
    significant proportion that have.

    As for cancelling the vote, I see that as something that's a much more
    severe route and that I won't be imposing as DPL. For that to happen
    there would have to be significant consensus within the project that
    would have to be able to convince our secretary. I doubt there's much
    chance of that happening before the end of the vote.

    The situation might seem bleak, but it's not completely hopeless. It's
    still possible for any member to vote FD above all other options if
    needed, and we can learn from this experience to improve our
    decision-making mechanisms going forward.

    While I certainly have my own views, agendas and biases within the
    project (as does any other DD), as DPL I aim to be both transparent
    about them and be fair to those with opposing views within the project. Sometimes this has been like walking a tightrope, but I think that we
    can all work together on improving our processes. Regardless of how both
    our current votes turn out, I resolve to start discussions on how we
    make decisions in Debian on the -project mailing list and also register
    BoF sessions at future events like DebConf (or even have a dedicated
    event for it, if there's enough interest). This is unlikely to be the
    last tough decision that we'll have to deal with.

    At the very minimum, please remember to treat other people with
    civility, and even kindness. It's ok to not agree with someone, but if
    you need to take someone on, do it based on their ideas that you don't
    agree with, don't get personal, don't call names, don't discredit
    someone based on their identity. As a project we also have some baggage
    that have built up, and we're still hauling that while at the same time navigating some difficult space. I believe that it's possible for us to
    get better, let's put it to the test to what extent that is possible.

    -Jonathan




    --pC2TqtHjO5M2xl5puyzrS20Qf8MMDaMyV--

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    wsF5BAABCAAjFiEExyA8CpIGcL+U8AuxsB0acqyNyaEFAmB0HQcFAwAAAAAACgkQsB0acqyNyaE8 hg/+MgVFVDk3Wbxco5VBRZBYp75jS7DcvI33R3USfDV3ZTxMeQ75R1aEY+u3lt/g4uJTEsdrmpwg ygbtt/5ttLUaSww458uWTZ5XPLr3tbM2hEQgaeuq5BQMslRtzMGgtHUGooQPN4gIJfzOH52z+pSV hNmj3emC4xjPtnoyhwNdTpC2Bd4iG9pMKC4jK9EDmO+K2lOOjPqlc6yv6THx9Q2SfcdHnp8t6tZm QSt7/F9w3vzjZpTqgSzLcy7Buh8uAQ8P/A3lXjOpdie5uCSkn68gjGz4WEOkVXp+7ukuHsfaCtPM o3kJfnCEIInFXPOTcHht2l/qKvTtSye2IOJnhKiV9KakyRacLn0QYIaiXu1yI9SF3eciCT/KSjX+ H0yksjF/+xdgy87iZ5aE8u5pSR9YhO5+z1tXm+uYHjSdzB/T0ic1SG4MA++nLvCDISVPDfQu/vvB VXP6BGxhD0HVud0yeF0jAyk0huY720CS4gEgHQKotujEJxcKsvemqfDxWyv43UovxJ2TUwXTxVOX l1IKmZpb6LmQFlhLQ0PmLWNG1eAQfM9yi9WklE3/S4GLBqmzhzJTRWqZF/7neBjIbzWc6hXgyX6h FHGLCtBoMu/3hp/h3GmTQP3FRjIm8fWoOMtUdJUoPLoYoLIuvyDtHo4Dw7M+ddvis66FXWlT1+SH pQI=
    =Ckw/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adrian Bunk@21:1/5 to Jonathan Carter on Mon Apr 12 14:10:01 2021
    On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:12:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
    ...
    As for cancelling the vote, I see that as something that's a much more
    severe route and that I won't be imposing as DPL. For that to happen
    there would have to be significant consensus within the project that
    would have to be able to convince our secretary. I doubt there's much
    chance of that happening before the end of the vote.

    The situation might seem bleak, but it's not completely hopeless. It's
    still possible for any member to vote FD above all other options if
    needed
    ...

    If only individual members would do that, the only effect would be that
    they would hurt the options they would have otherwise voted above FD.

    A constitutional way out of the current mess would be a general
    agreement that a majority of voters votes FD first.

    It would be possible to vote only FD to keep your opinion secret,
    or fill a complete ballot if a member chooses to do so.

    Discussing and voting on a change to the constitution to make all votes
    secret could then be done in 1+1 weeks starting even before the current
    GR ends, followed by a secret vote on a new GR.

    -Jonathan

    cu
    Adrian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jonas Smedegaard@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 12 13:20:01 2021
    Hi Jonathan,

    Quoting Jonathan Carter (2021-04-12 12:12:23)
    Over the course of the last few days, I've received many mails
    regarding the RMS GR, both on this list, on debian-private and in
    private. These mails contain a wide spectrum of concerns and even
    ideas on how to improve our situation, each of which come with their
    own set of upsides and downsides.

    Amazingly unbiased summary of events, and sensible reasoning on how to
    deal with the current complexities.

    Thank you very much, Jonathan!


    - Jonas

    --
    * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
    * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

    [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============g43701362306315099=MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Content-Description: signature
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmB0K5wACgkQLHwxRsGg ASFL8BAAnCVmqWPIbULYDP6DfDm20su/eWa8Pt/wOuYb9uyoynb8E14SOGgTW5U3 oAIWExbAOmpKhFLuexVTBnHpGzTE4K170mJ1MfxAb18AxbqOdrc6AA9wAZzfE0Uu k8sO3DFEr5ITwvfKo5N33Qdcrg3cJI0ebjBxRcWWK4pYea9+QwyFp4BTMK+9ZkIG +5TQbpelNzMm5O0oLYtgR9CUq2tK07qMsLKHG19DKvO5Zh+V0vtvhcRtJmERPBid Q1EufxPPOsQzqtJAlbSq/YyJosK8I7KgWQa2Fu27nAaUlJdfyaW8F445FvtonIoL +TV34YRJ7ATAYaUjvw2UE3N9F6OVzrzH5ZdQ+JMlHkHURR6r8XKOA6T+DTyfLshR jUFJiXWQcnkTSTIl1+V+Ce8uGdYVLun4LVEgxrbTiCkHLX5QIYkctqQ6xbh8LP3U mxQ6Pjcxvyn0IEGbKwlG2svxiAq/2ZQ1VZAdIIBNBYCLqbia2jmpJk9seweqm5CQ lC8WOdftqDCAEHg/U
  • From Adrian Bunk@21:1/5 to Ansgar on Mon Apr 12 15:10:01 2021
    On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
    Adrian Bunk writes:
    Discussing and voting on a change to the constitution to make all votes secret could then be done in 1+1 weeks starting even before the current
    GR ends, followed by a secret vote on a new GR.

    The 1+1 weeks would only start after a proposal was made that no longer
    needs changes (only minor changes do not reset the discussion period
    under A.1.6). I don't think anyone already has a finished proposal in
    their drawer.

    My statement is still true if there are a day or two discussing the
    exact wording before formally starting the GR.

    And rushing changes to the constitution doesn't seem like a good idea.

    It sounds better to me than violating the constitution.

    It sounds better to me than changing the rules of an election after
    voting has already started.

    Ansgar

    cu
    Adrian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar@21:1/5 to Adrian Bunk on Mon Apr 12 14:30:02 2021
    Adrian Bunk writes:
    Discussing and voting on a change to the constitution to make all votes secret could then be done in 1+1 weeks starting even before the current
    GR ends, followed by a secret vote on a new GR.

    The 1+1 weeks would only start after a proposal was made that no longer
    needs changes (only minor changes do not reset the discussion period
    under A.1.6). I don't think anyone already has a finished proposal in
    their drawer.

    And rushing changes to the constitution doesn't seem like a good idea.

    Ansgar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)