• GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

    From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 26 04:30:02 2021
    Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
    of the above" and fixes two typos.


    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 "None of the above". 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 weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
    any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
    canceled.

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    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 "None of the above".

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

    In 6.3.3, replace "amendments" with "ballot options."

    Add, at the end of section 6.3, the following new point:

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    Section A
    ---------

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
    sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
    that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial
    two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and
    the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that
    ballot option.

    A.1. Discussion and amendment

    1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed
    and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The
    maximum discussion period is 3 weeks.

    2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the
    requirements for a new resolution.

    3. The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
    none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the
    amendment is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If
    any of them do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.

    4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
    ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one
    week from when that action was done, unless that would make the
    total discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period
    or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case,
    the length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum
    discussion period.

    5. The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that
    option (for example, typographical fixes, corrections of
    inconsistencies, or other changes which do not alter the meaning),
    providing no Developer objects within 24 hours. In this case the
    length of the discussion period is not changed. If a Developer does
    object, the change must instead be made via amendment under point
    A.1.3.

    6. The Project Leader may, at any point in the process, increase or
    decrease the minimum and maximum discussion period by up to 1 week
    from their original values in point A.1.1, except that they may not
    do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end within 48
    hours of when this change is made. The length of the discussion
    period is then recalculated as if the new minimum and maximum
    lengths had been in place during all previous ballot changes under
    points A.1.1 and A.1.4.

    7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be
    amended or withdrawn.

    A.2. Withdrawing ballot options

    1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
    proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
    which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
    any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
    proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
    sponsoring a new resolution.

    2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
    the length of the discussion period.

    4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
    resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    4. No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may be
    amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw within 24 hours
    of the end of the discussion period unless this action successfully
    extends the discussion period under point A.1.4 by at least 24
    additional hours.

    5. Actions to preserve the existing ballot may be taken within 24
    hours of the end of the discussion period, namely a sponsor
    objecting to an amendment under point A.1.3, a Developer objecting
    to a minor change under point A.1.5, stepping forward as the
    proposer for an existing ballot option whose original proposer has
    withdrawn it under point A.2.1, or sponsoring an existing ballot
    option that has fewer than the required number of sponsors because
    of the withdrawal of a sponsor under point A.2.2.

    6. The Project Secretary may make an exception to point A.3.4 and
    accept changes to the ballot after they are no longer allowed,
    provided that this is done at least 24 hours prior to the issuance
    of a call for a vote. All other requirements for making a change to
    the ballot must still be met. This is expected to be rare and
    should only be done if the Project Secretary believes it would be
    harmful to the best interests of the project for the change to not
    be made.

    A.4. Voting procedure

    1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
    have a 1:1 majority requirement. The default option does not have
    any supermajority requirements.

    2. The votes are counted according to the rules in section §A.5.

    3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
    procedure.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    Rename section A.6 to A.5.

    Replace the paragraph at the end of section A.6 (now A.5) with:

    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. The default option must not have any supermajority
    requirements.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

    iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE1zk0tJZ0z1zNmsJ4fYAxXFc23nUFAmGgU7kACgkQfYAxXFc2 3nUcwAgAtQIVIeiPs7omy9ddokMPvcLLt3Nm0+4uPOF0jIuuDqaZ3shhmbIIKCrm l2cXMPjLlVVufu05SWzSn5aouavPOxPaVlrIaZRbFt//RlYWnblWhWM++QneTAAh tD+Qx9UA092mpObh5tA51A0ZXAhQVLhdfVvG+YwP150Gdm31gm0ts9BPChrIw1bk 4UYJYLSF3WRrXRZZ42PSom6rxhBRzfz0t6IhDqfEFZjxJaPHyJ8vpGphd13AULem WRe3x2WS9Yp1f4JCJOIArNt7qRjPlfO0UJboeQFb+ajrIGvfAfyBRuh8BrCGOngj bmT9g1U1cxg4Kbmxt6zfyrJjUhzHrA==evjM
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pierre-Elliott =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=A9cue@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Fri Nov 26 10:00:02 2021
    Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote on 26/11/2021 at 04:25:45+0100:

    [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at 2021-11-26T04:25:45+0100 using RSA]]
    Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
    of the above" and fixes two typos.


    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 "None of the above". 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 weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
    any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
    canceled.

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    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 "None of the above".

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

    In 6.3.3, replace "amendments" with "ballot options."

    Add, at the end of section 6.3, the following new point:

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    Section A
    ---------

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
    sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
    that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial
    two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and
    the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that
    ballot option.

    A.1. Discussion and amendment

    1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed
    and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The
    maximum discussion period is 3 weeks.

    2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the
    requirements for a new resolution.

    3. The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
    none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the
    amendment is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If
    any of them do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.

    4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
    ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one
    week from when that action was done, unless that would make the
    total discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period
    or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case,
    the length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum
    discussion period.

    5. The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that
    option (for example, typographical fixes, corrections of
    inconsistencies, or other changes which do not alter the meaning),
    providing no Developer objects within 24 hours. In this case the
    length of the discussion period is not changed. If a Developer does
    object, the change must instead be made via amendment under point
    A.1.3.

    6. The Project Leader may, at any point in the process, increase or
    decrease the minimum and maximum discussion period by up to 1 week
    from their original values in point A.1.1, except that they may not
    do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end within 48
    hours of when this change is made. The length of the discussion
    period is then recalculated as if the new minimum and maximum
    lengths had been in place during all previous ballot changes under
    points A.1.1 and A.1.4.

    7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be
    amended or withdrawn.

    A.2. Withdrawing ballot options

    1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
    proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
    which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
    any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
    proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
    sponsoring a new resolution.

    2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
    the length of the discussion period.

    4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
    resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    4. No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may be
    amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw within 24 hours
    of the end of the discussion period unless this action successfully
    extends the discussion period under point A.1.4 by at least 24
    additional hours.

    5. Actions to preserve the existing ballot may be taken within 24
    hours of the end of the discussion period, namely a sponsor
    objecting to an amendment under point A.1.3, a Developer objecting
    to a minor change under point A.1.5, stepping forward as the
    proposer for an existing ballot option whose original proposer has
    withdrawn it under point A.2.1, or sponsoring an existing ballot
    option that has fewer than the required number of sponsors because
    of the withdrawal of a sponsor under point A.2.2.

    6. The Project Secretary may make an exception to point A.3.4 and
    accept changes to the ballot after they are no longer allowed,
    provided that this is done at least 24 hours prior to the issuance
    of a call for a vote. All other requirements for making a change to
    the ballot must still be met. This is expected to be rare and
    should only be done if the Project Secretary believes it would be
    harmful to the best interests of the project for the change to not
    be made.

    A.4. Voting procedure

    1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
    have a 1:1 majority requirement. The default option does not have
    any supermajority requirements.

    2. The votes are counted according to the rules in section §A.5.

    3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
    procedure.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    Rename section A.6 to A.5.

    Replace the paragraph at the end of section A.6 (now A.5) with:

    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. The default option must not have any supermajority
    requirements.

    Seconded.

    --
    PEB

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

    iQJDBAEBCgAtFiEESYqTBWsFJgT6y8ijKb+g0HkpCsoFAmGgn8APHHBlYkBkZWJp YW4ub3JnAAoJECm/oNB5KQrK7boQAKPsctsPHMAPBs7zPdgJwxyROKZOYETnvfZ0 mjm1scwP8mBI7WQGeVNL4iAbbHu7FuERSN/zvGVqUe6Cl83sE8LjBdRZSSjniGRH f0nG9I+rXU1vXeJyrrPxk/hYxW/x3OX9Nn9dxiyjlMEzIP7qMXC6GEREM/ap9Ek2 HpYZxiFoMjTREytnCvWzmnvB1zZQPu1Dd8yR04sL8PvkdN6kSuGNt4yjnQOWADpV utygXlMNCcwtt9QhxQc0TGDacSnoBApse8N0F55MPHRrtsGbyJ5EuLIjtjNNRUa9 oWmqXcoBvUyt44W4DsN2oI0Fajg+W6n6IL5g1TiuJmoFt18H86VkxtYdxMP0KEY8 7L98iMpX5iX9/4jYUCq6Uzo0umR7B6nzo7RKZzYcOKpiuLd8IfDgqhu68g2WLd9E kScGXhoJ+cfly91U2ww97bl3ErMOmm16sSg79ZgoZ4nYAv+07HMUJBC5uBB7r03k 1Gu9XX9HHoirpOaerFxZFm82Iu47Q1njkTpAHgEUyu32PM0Gt1BmI27pUl2RHBZ+ wNix5wiIQ6ZC8BdjYOoWQIMRfDQaNDYphvRcpvpjtNtvYjXos2PqmsP6MK336l9o 2qFquXhNYnQzaXyDGbHcwoj9lTWjEwaCKIibNVK5OfaQadLspgej49GIAhhimL62
    q2k3qbwV
    =1hLl
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timo =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hling?=@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 26 10:50:02 2021
    * Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> [2021-11-26 09:49]:
    Seconded.
    I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
    proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
    implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

    (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)


    Cheers
    Timo


    --
    ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
    ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │
    ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
    ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

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

    iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEJvtDgpxjkjCIVtam+C8H+466LVkFAmGgrKoACgkQ+C8H+466 LVnf/gv9FAHtp+4j7vf/GSCozyOSrGu5is1v02Y3gPWDILO22A4TYpWNurq6kxNl IdhKAjbukWescBTP2hnqha9xDFGrUoNLtyUxlV9yt+fd0T1RN0g+pJy9c5PI6TrA 0Mtn8RN1iAnc+XJi4r85EuQojwdgsSZ4TR/LAwAOwMGntOUsCl9eJu+lRJFaX3uk do7GoAKAVv3m490ll9xYD282xKdODyySe3G7KEBJggpZXKGFUqGCt/gMiWmJZt8w ICgg6T+AtwSsvpwv/R59fIZdcCqdM3nHgIC8qAEbW7ZKVQ927KSm1P2oKFh0xi4h eSc74+3T+l2kjb+Uzx0CyjCHk5PZXVel4I57NssTTLC
  • From Holger Levsen@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Fri Nov 26 11:40:01 2021
    I second this.

    On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
    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 "None of the above". 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 weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
    any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
    canceled.

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    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 "None of the above".

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

    In 6.3.3, replace "amendments" with "ballot options."

    Add, at the end of section 6.3, the following new point:

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    Section A
    ---------

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
    sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
    that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial
    two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and
    the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that
    ballot option.

    A.1. Discussion and amendment

    1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed
    and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The
    maximum discussion period is 3 weeks.

    2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the
    requirements for a new resolution.

    3. The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
    none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the
    amendment is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If
    any of them do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.

    4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
    ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one
    week from when that action was done, unless that would make the
    total discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period
    or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case,
    the length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum
    discussion period.

    5. The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that
    option (for example, typographical fixes, corrections of
    inconsistencies, or other changes which do not alter the meaning),
    providing no Developer objects within 24 hours. In this case the
    length of the discussion period is not changed. If a Developer does
    object, the change must instead be made via amendment under point
    A.1.3.

    6. The Project Leader may, at any point in the process, increase or
    decrease the minimum and maximum discussion period by up to 1 week
    from their original values in point A.1.1, except that they may not
    do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end within 48
    hours of when this change is made. The length of the discussion
    period is then recalculated as if the new minimum and maximum
    lengths had been in place during all previous ballot changes under
    points A.1.1 and A.1.4.

    7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be
    amended or withdrawn.

    A.2. Withdrawing ballot options

    1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
    proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
    which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
    any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
    proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
    sponsoring a new resolution.

    2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
    the length of the discussion period.

    4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
    resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    4. No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may be
    amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw within 24 hours
    of the end of the discussion period unless this action successfully
    extends the discussion period under point A.1.4 by at least 24
    additional hours.

    5. Actions to preserve the existing ballot may be taken within 24
    hours of the end of the discussion period, namely a sponsor
    objecting to an amendment under point A.1.3, a Developer objecting
    to a minor change under point A.1.5, stepping forward as the
    proposer for an existing ballot option whose original proposer has
    withdrawn it under point A.2.1, or sponsoring an existing ballot
    option that has fewer than the required number of sponsors because
    of the withdrawal of a sponsor under point A.2.2.

    6. The Project Secretary may make an exception to point A.3.4 and
    accept changes to the ballot after they are no longer allowed,
    provided that this is done at least 24 hours prior to the issuance
    of a call for a vote. All other requirements for making a change to
    the ballot must still be met. This is expected to be rare and
    should only be done if the Project Secretary believes it would be
    harmful to the best interests of the project for the change to not
    be made.

    A.4. Voting procedure

    1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
    have a 1:1 majority requirement. The default option does not have
    any supermajority requirements.

    2. The votes are counted according to the rules in section §A.5.

    3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
    procedure.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    Rename section A.6 to A.5.

    Replace the paragraph at the end of section A.6 (now A.5) with:

    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. The default option must not have any supermajority
    requirements.

    seconded.


    --
    cheers,
    Holger

    ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
    ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
    ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
    ⠈⠳⣄

    If it feels like we’re breaking climate records every year, it’s because we are.

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

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAmGgt8cACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhxGwQ/9FQLSMi+kHzkxIpHlzX7jcK5Oghs79uXpFmI+RNObT2e9ftTmpo4fM70K yy3CzntKM46QVbw6UYLIxTOI9wTDO3K9GE13y2v54FCuolay5DIKbEtUTrhW1WUX U1VzEQISUjhe0nEx0DvehoGUcfock/AoETmDd51puB8I49TPtIV1L+6EJsUt6XDi 5aRCmIBr/aIkJ8sMFNJbXtL9IUy46rYtkhx6ex9h4eUHgBhVx9W/pScXmkyWHcXv WMawvDnA+W0MAm7DhPsdgVyZrTp22pA8uen397RQ3s0HPbke8EbuLzTz8k3Bo+CH ChC//az4rgerpT9KefUKLNLJgq7QTTnA5QowZ6lKmRYRy9KHw+bHF118drGonf1L xQzTXinKVCIQ582P3yapNYDNlq5w4o4dqlmgZ4LayLI/YQDAmEUueuCn0DUjPC9T hDjNMgMCJqd1g4v9SJIMhxTNF+pAZEZNgHEt57XVmO37n+HtVjXABeDIk6EUp4wG 0TxKr9FiUqKnnh8l9IgkwSv5PSJwdZLi7MaF7wkLLhtXw8BtPCP3aWrty7HB1SHy 3EU7w+ZzPl1mXDNctQ0/qYHSbTdv
  • From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to roehling@debian.org on Fri Nov 26 17:30:01 2021
    Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> writes:

    I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
    proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
    implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

    (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)

    That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything unless they object. (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gunnar Wolf@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 26 18:10:01 2021
    Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800]:
    I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
    proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
    implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

    (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)

    That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything unless they object. (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

    Ok... Well, your new text has at least three full-text seconders and
    one implicit seconder (who didn't full-quote it). It won't hurt if
    people sign it ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 26 20:30:02 2021
    "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates
    Russ> the formal amendment to change the default option for TC
    Russ> resolutions to also be "None of the above" and fixes two
    Russ> typos.

    I still support this and my second still stands.
    I also agree this message is unnecessary as I understand the procedures.

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

    iHUEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCYaEzkgAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dMr2AQCfeAqt96KU5HmFfuYYrg5ezfM5fNIAizJaXWjBKjrFdwEA0IL5ceXvu61D 1ENE6VfVNl4xuWpN5bcizZYEgvGYXA8=
    =zwZ9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kurt Roeckx@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Sat Nov 27 03:30:01 2021
    On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
    Timo Rhling <roehling@debian.org> writes:

    I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
    proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
    implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?

    (If I am, consider this my sponsoring of the amended version)

    That's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything unless they object. (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)

    I agree with that.


    Kurt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kurt Roeckx@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Sun Nov 28 10:40:02 2021
    On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
    Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
    of the above" and fixes two typos.

    I've updated the website and changed the start of the discussion
    period to 2021-11-25.


    Kurt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sean Whitton@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Mon Nov 29 20:10:02 2021
    Hello,

    I too would like to second the following quoted proposal. Thanks Russ.

    On Thu 25 Nov 2021 at 07:25PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:

    Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
    of the above" and fixes two typos.


    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 "None of the above". 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 weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
    any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
    canceled.

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    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 "None of the above".

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

    In 6.3.3, replace "amendments" with "ballot options."

    Add, at the end of section 6.3, the following new point:

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    Section A
    ---------

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
    sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
    that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    2. This draft resolution becomes a ballot option in an initial
    two-option ballot, the other option being the default option, and
    the proposer of the draft resolution becomes the proposer of that
    ballot option.

    A.1. Discussion and amendment

    1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed
    and sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The
    maximum discussion period is 3 weeks.

    2. A new ballot option may be proposed and sponsored according to the
    requirements for a new resolution.

    3. The proposer of a ballot option may amend that option provided that
    none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the
    amendment is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If
    any of them do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.

    4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
    ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one
    week from when that action was done, unless that would make the
    total discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period
    or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case,
    the length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum
    discussion period.

    5. The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that
    option (for example, typographical fixes, corrections of
    inconsistencies, or other changes which do not alter the meaning),
    providing no Developer objects within 24 hours. In this case the
    length of the discussion period is not changed. If a Developer does
    object, the change must instead be made via amendment under point
    A.1.3.

    6. The Project Leader may, at any point in the process, increase or
    decrease the minimum and maximum discussion period by up to 1 week
    from their original values in point A.1.1, except that they may not
    do so in a way that causes the discussion period to end within 48
    hours of when this change is made. The length of the discussion
    period is then recalculated as if the new minimum and maximum
    lengths had been in place during all previous ballot changes under
    points A.1.1 and A.1.4.

    7. The default option has no proposer or sponsors, and cannot be
    amended or withdrawn.

    A.2. Withdrawing ballot options

    1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
    proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
    which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
    any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
    proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
    sponsoring a new resolution.

    2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
    the length of the discussion period.

    4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
    resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    4. No new ballot options may be proposed, no ballot options may be
    amended, and no proposers or sponsors may withdraw within 24 hours
    of the end of the discussion period unless this action successfully
    extends the discussion period under point A.1.4 by at least 24
    additional hours.

    5. Actions to preserve the existing ballot may be taken within 24
    hours of the end of the discussion period, namely a sponsor
    objecting to an amendment under point A.1.3, a Developer objecting
    to a minor change under point A.1.5, stepping forward as the
    proposer for an existing ballot option whose original proposer has
    withdrawn it under point A.2.1, or sponsoring an existing ballot
    option that has fewer than the required number of sponsors because
    of the withdrawal of a sponsor under point A.2.2.

    6. The Project Secretary may make an exception to point A.3.4 and
    accept changes to the ballot after they are no longer allowed,
    provided that this is done at least 24 hours prior to the issuance
    of a call for a vote. All other requirements for making a change to
    the ballot must still be met. This is expected to be rare and
    should only be done if the Project Secretary believes it would be
    harmful to the best interests of the project for the change to not
    be made.

    A.4. Voting procedure

    1. Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
    have a 1:1 majority requirement. The default option does not have
    any supermajority requirements.

    2. The votes are counted according to the rules in section §A.5.

    3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
    procedure.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    Rename section A.6 to A.5.

    Replace the paragraph at the end of section A.6 (now A.5) with:

    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. The default option must not have any supermajority
    requirements.

    --
    Sean Whitton

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

    iQJNBAEBCgA3FiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAmGlIkAZHHNwd2hpdHRv bkBzcHdoaXR0b24ubmFtZQAKCRBpW3rkvwZiQBZDEACZI4B5CQBqyhrX1+tyHw5e 39UXwVVffLv3xh/Xyov1/cP46YVVBqI4mOejs+T0HlFabuCNJ0+bkHj0OZ/B+RII iGoo4Jqj6w7JjiFfgfFI9VRWWfW2XGkqm+vwwPH9aAxlgsYFLhR4fRr5LM+8L9M/ S1gG12DhVpdqqS/4eo1ztZ7WsmhhOBMWWQkfBJ2BxnQB8aPn0s8H47+eMrrTSJUp rmN/WCmwI4Xfdcms3U5i+bIbyfOjlHjEQOzxkN9jahmrr0afXOczMKVPK4J6oRYQ yxko7nGwhKvaM5DS4d4TAEC5W8UJtYIGEh1hceFsKo9BojGcr+IKqdTBaphnXDyC aqOCnFeO+gkV0n6sKxJHnZKTXjm698BfXiHnJfj86WI8SrVauFn0w1MMPy8V6MlO k3XRfW9NhaWku0B61cASu8FjhEHIPoOxldkIhOl4DW0seLi42uDpwzVjzczorRuy 84ebdYdaEsIAInq5N9b8l5wai/DneAvdf7xvSg/HXtKUfz56jCumBwlHD5jSQTB5 y7sZx806+AbMiqj+TQ8WeG9YAtZJ81ZD28ScoP2LB/hGhAYcakzIjJCFOxQSXOPA hWXTK7HPj8HQnLObL1/GL3ch7sD8QmpNF7HRmkZVWMTCLWRxH0+RFgO4tXPllzbf Rhp9ZbRzzhrLiE8O5EILEw==WDpI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Us
  • From Kurt Roeckx@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Tue Nov 30 23:40:01 2021
    On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
    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 "None of the above". 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 weeks after the original proposal the ballot is closed to
    any changes and voting starts automatically. This vote cannot be
    canceled.

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    Can options be added or removed during that 24 hour period? I currently
    fail to see how useful canceling is when it's going to start again 24
    hours later without any changes.

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

    Section A
    ---------

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
    sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of
    that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    I'm not sure how useful a summary is at the stage of the proposal. Depending
    on the other options that might get added later, it might not be clear.
    So I'm not sure a "must" there is useful.

    A.2. Withdrawing ballot options

    1. The proposer of a ballot option may withdraw. If they do, new
    proposers may come forward to keep the ballot option alive, in
    which case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and
    any others become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already. Any new
    proposer or sponsors must meet the requirements for proposing or
    sponsoring a new resolution.

    2. A sponsor of a ballot option may withdraw.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change
    the length of the discussion period.

    If they wait for more than 24 hours, I assume they need to follow A.1.2
    (and so can change the length of the discussion period)?

    4. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, the
    resolution is canceled and will not be voted on.

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    Given all the options where 24 hours after the discussion period is over
    things can still change, wouldn't it be better to wait at least 24 hours
    before calling a vote?

    The case where I think we want an immediately is for an election.

    It seems that this applies everything using the Standard Resolution
    Procedure, including Technical Committee votes. Is it intentional that
    the Secretary will be involved in those now, while that did not happen
    before?

    Does a call for vote mean that people can start voting soon afterwards?
    I prefer to start a vote during a period I know I can make time
    available, and would be happier with a 7 day period.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    I suggest rewording this to avoid the negative, so remove the
    "not", change the "unless" to "if". The same applies to some
    of the other points.

    It's also unclear what the "after or within 24 hours" means.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    I can you can change the "Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:"
    to include A.5.

    I think 4.2.1 still has: "resolution or amendment". Is that something
    you want to change to "resolution or ballot options"?

    The compare link on has at least:
    - section &sect;A.5
    - &sect;A.5
    - section A.5

    Can you make it more consistent?


    Kurt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Wanderer@21:1/5 to Kurt Roeckx on Wed Dec 1 02:20:01 2021
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
    On 2021-11-30 at 17:36, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

    On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:


    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless >> the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    I suggest rewording this to avoid the negative, so remove the
    "not", change the "unless" to "if". The same applies to some
    of the other points.

    Speaking only for myself (and as someone not entitled to vote), I would
    find the result of this more confusing, less understandable, and harder
    to read - to such an extent that if I ran across it, I would be inclined
    to suggest rephrasing it to use the negative instead.

    If I'm parsing my own reaction correctly, the reason is that this would
    change this from having the prohibition on making such changes during
    that period be stated explicitly, to having it not be stated directly at
    all, but only implied in "the exception that proves the rule" fashion.

    At the very least, I think you'd need to use something like "if and only
    if" rather than just "if". More complicated rephrasings might produce
    better results; on that point, see below.

    It's also unclear what the "after or within 24 hours" means.

    I parsed that (together with the rest of the phrase) as meaning that the prohibition on such minor changes takes effect 24 hours prior to the end
    of the discussion period, and lasts indefinitely thereafter.

    The reason is that all periods after the end of the discussion period
    are included by the clause "after the end of the discussion period", so
    the "within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period" clause can
    only be extending this backwards from the end, to cover the preceding 24
    hours.

    If I've got that right, then perhaps something like "Minor changes to
    ballot options under point A.1.5 may only be made until the point 24
    hours before the end of the discussion period, unless" might address
    both points above at once?

    --
    The Wanderer

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
    progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


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

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmGmy24ACgkQBKk1jTQo Mmu4VQ/+P4mzy5v6an4gClu8R+K6CLtsqKnYZ7QlePyfhASBLt/9RIP73NG8f5WU HX7Wcu9yNkuOAUWBSYhVv+DGOp4gAk5AEKq5TWMhTpZfvw46rW56PjRETzGD9yeB asLRp/4Fpxb5sbKapG44sQ5mJkWSXW/i+lC7mSKaOTfoPTCslVTLgo4lnv1sRFvK 1BYThMErAWQbBV1BTNAxE3gebktG+YQ/1oKUE2g09dZ9Dyz0l8fUDWlxwKjNofRY wz4hgJmuwL9UyKZoxMirQaMsEV9eq1myHwCo97GtKYVtr7bBN9LSQcBUMzgSHJCL eqeBMnO4U8LG6F3gvJr5noqitCxHIRqtaQWMmYUPNqkStPry+E9Ds2fxHwf4COBr Llt4yWgwPDr7Ug0wV4fnKxIJQQByxKyJ/mcsga7Rcvmj6ifUZCSORhu0SJyFtC+h so/YDScHUocMBNq/3K4WCfWN6PzyR0XJLEayA0mxisTdhjN7cIcPvKqoJ336bh/W zSsXw/jtR3IrmlmaVCoZm3DoUh2z+J9QrcPy2Iu2aTM8YNOIi/SgDT6gUOz6b/rN AjeHRScdEN8L05uPJ7a05tBLIXkqRYiNaeOy9EW5wUCmMnVebVa/wOF8ZJGHaeiL HfLZ3cIYFjZPlsg2WiRc0aqWSQOA
  • From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to Kurt Roeckx on Wed Dec 1 08:00:02 2021
    Thank you very much for the review!

    Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
    On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

    6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
    after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
    point 6.3.1.5 instead starts 24 hours after the time of
    cancellation. During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a
    vote.

    Can options be added or removed during that 24 hour period?

    Yes; the intent was for that to follow naturally from 6.3.1.2 and the fact
    that nothing says this cannot happen. But maybe I should change the last sentence to say "During that 24 hour period, no one may call for a vote,
    but Technical Committee members may make ballot changes under 6.3.1.2"
    just to make it explicit?

    7. Proposing a general resolution.

    When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of the
    Technical Committee.

    How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

    That was what I was assuming because I don't think the TC has any other decision-making mechanism than that, but I guess that's not completely
    clear in the constitution. Maybe add "(via a resolution)" after
    "delegate"?

    Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety with:

    A.0. Proposal

    1. The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and >> sponsored, as required. A draft resolution must include the text of >> that resolution and a short single-line summary suitable for
    labeling the ballot choice.

    I'm not sure how useful a summary is at the stage of the
    proposal. Depending on the other options that might get added later, it
    might not be clear. So I'm not sure a "must" there is useful.

    Good point. This is the surface of a larger discussion that didn't really
    get resolved. Currently, the constitution says that whoever calls for a
    vote is responsible for coming up with the summaries. The goal here was
    to shift that responsibility to the person proposing the option (since the Project Secretary is now the one calling for a vote), but maybe that needs
    to move to some explicit statement under calling for a vote?

    Maybe dropping that from A.0.1 and changing A.3.2 to:

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. The
    proposer of each option must provide a single-line summary of that
    option suitable for labeling the ballot choice. The Project
    Secretary at their discretion may reword the single-line summaries
    for clarity.

    How does that sound?

    Alternately, we could just say that the Project Secretary writes the
    summaries, but I wasn't sure if that would be welcome or is a good idea.

    3. If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
    ballot option has no proposer or not enough sponsors to meet the
    requirements for a new resolution, and 24 hours pass without this
    being remedied by another proposer and/or sponsors stepping
    forward, it is removed from the draft ballot. This does not change >> the length of the discussion period.

    If they wait for more than 24 hours, I assume they need to follow A.1.2
    (and so can change the length of the discussion period)?

    Yes. Do you think that needs clarification?

    A.3. Calling for a vote

    1. After the discussion period has ended, the Project Secretary will
    publish the ballot and call for a vote. The Project Secretary may
    do this immediately following the end of the discussion period and
    must do so within five days of the end of the discussion period.

    Given all the options where 24 hours after the discussion period is over things can still change, wouldn't it be better to wait at least 24 hours before calling a vote?

    I think there's a fundamental confusion here somewhere that I must
    clarify, since there isn't anything that can happen 24 hours after the discussion period is over. There are a bunch of things that are allowed
    to happen in the 24 hours immediately before the discussion period ends
    (and other things that can't happen in that period).

    The other reading of ("within 24 hours of the end of the discussion
    period") never occurred to me, although it's obvious in retrospect.

    Maybe in A.3.4 (for example) it would be clearer to say "no proposers or sponsors may withdraw in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion period"? And likewise in A.3.5, "Actions to preserve the existing ballot
    may be taken in the 24 hours preceding the end of the discussion period."

    It seems that this applies everything using the Standard Resolution Procedure, including Technical Committee votes. Is it intentional that
    the Secretary will be involved in those now, while that did not happen before?

    It does not (unless I missed something). There should no longer be any references to the Standard Resolution Procedure in general in the new
    version of the constitution except 4.2.1 (General Resolutions) and 5.2.7
    (DPL elections). Those other sections specifically reference A.5 only,
    which is just the vote-counting system.

    Does a call for vote mean that people can start voting soon afterwards?
    I prefer to start a vote during a period I know I can make time
    available, and would be happier with a 7 day period.

    Yeah, the intent is to use "call for a vote" to mean publishing the ballot
    and let people start voting. To me that's the natural meaning, although
    the current constitution uses it differently. (A better term is very
    welcome.)

    I can change five days to seven days; I think there should be some limit,
    but the actual limit feels fairly arbitrary and I'm happy to pick
    something that fits with how you normally do things.

    2. The Project Secretary determines the order of ballot options. At
    their discretion they may reword the single-line summaries for
    clarity.

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may not be made
    after or within 24 hours of the end of the discussion period unless >> the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    I suggest rewording this to avoid the negative, so remove the "not",
    change the "unless" to "if". The same applies to some of the other
    points.

    It's also unclear what the "after or within 24 hours" means.

    Yeah, this is part of the whole "within" confusion per above. How about:

    3. Minor changes to ballot options under point A.1.5 may only be made
    if at least 24 hours are remaining in the discussion period, or if
    the Project Secretary agrees the change does not alter the meaning
    of the ballot option and (if it would do so) warrants delaying the
    vote. The Project Secretary will allow 24 hours for objections
    after any such change before issuing the call for a vote.

    Strike section A.5 in its entirety.

    I can you can change the "Replace A.0 through A.4 in their entirety
    with:" to include A.5.

    Yes, good idea, will do.

    I think 4.2.1 still has: "resolution or amendment". Is that something
    you want to change to "resolution or ballot options"?

    Good catch, yes.

    The compare link on has at least:
    - section &sect;A.5
    - &sect;A.5
    - section §A.5

    Can you make it more consistent?

    Yes, will do. The first of those three was the intended one to use.

    Unfortunately, the constitution is in general inconsistent, so I think
    without including some additional statement in my GR I can only fix the
    bits that I'm already editing. I suppose I could maybe add a blanket
    statement to change the syntax of all the section references or something.

    It's hard to write this GR to both be complete and accurate, and even
    vaguely readable without being annoyingly long.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 1 17:00:01 2021
    "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
    >>> 7. Proposing a general resolution.
    >>>
    >>> When the Technical Committee proposes a general resolution or a
    >>> ballot option in a general resolution to the project under point
    >>> 4.2.1, it may delegate the authority to withdraw, amend, or make
    >>> minor changes to the ballot option to one of its members. If it
    >>> does not do so, these decisions must be made by resolution of
    >>> the Technical Committee.

    >> How do they delegate that? Using a resolution?

    Russ> That was what I was assuming because I don't think the TC has
    Russ> any other decision-making mechanism than that, but I guess
    Russ> that's not completely clear in the constitution. Maybe add
    Russ> "(via a resolution)" after "delegate"?

    I would object to this. In particular I'd object to adding a
    constitutional bar to the TC using some other decision making mechanism
    were it to exist, or to making it easier to create such a mechanism.
    I'd be happy to support adding text making it clear that delegation by resolution is sufficient. I just don't want to close out other
    mechanisms


    The only other such mechanism that may exist today would be the TC
    passing by resolution some operating procedures.
    For example the TC might pass a general policy by resolution that unless otherwise specified this power was delegated to the TC chair.
    I don't want to handle the question of whether the TC can do that now,
    and I certainly don't want to rule it out,
    I'd object to exclusive language.

    If someone feels the need I'd support something lik like adding "such as
    by resolution".

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

    iHQEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCYaebHgAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dIHCAPwMb+znZ5h3ZKrY0lWlT49tPOIIMRmkkiO+Jy44aeujOgD4/QeF/bD76R96 lyvfSoBI0jHHM9dUIpQ8zHv6HVS9Cw==gczA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 9 06:40:02 2021
    Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet. I got rather
    busy with non-Debian things for a bit.

    To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several significant
    issues and we need another revision. I hope to finish that soon, at least
    by next weekend if not sooner.

    There are several things that I think are fairly straightforward to fix.
    The open questions that I was hoping to get some further feedback on were:

    * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the
    short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we
    specify that the Project Secretary writes them?

    * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in the rule on
    when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote after the end of the
    discussion period?

    * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to describe the
    Project Secretary starting the vote?

    There are also a few wording proposals in the previous message to which
    this is a reply. Except for the one about how the Technical Committee
    selects someone to run a GR process, I intend to adopt those in the new version, so if anyone doesn't like them, please speak up. For the TC
    part, I plan on using Sam's proposed wording.

    --
    Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raphael Hertzog@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Thu Dec 9 14:00:02 2021
    Hi,

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Russ Allbery wrote:
    * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the
    short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we
    specify that the Project Secretary writes them?

    I think it has always been a mix of both that has been working relatively
    well. The proposer should likely suggest a wording but the project
    secretary should likely have the final word in case of divergence and the
    right to adjust them to avoid ambiguities with other options.

    * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in the rule on
    when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote after the end of the
    discussion period?

    Fine for me.

    --
    ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
    ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
    ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
    ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 9 18:40:01 2021
    "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet. I
    Russ> got rather busy with non-Debian things for a bit.

    Russ> To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several
    Russ> significant issues and we need another revision. I hope to
    Russ> finish that soon, at least by next weekend if not sooner.

    Russ> There are several things that I think are fairly
    Russ> straightforward to fix. The open questions that I was hoping
    Russ> to get some further feedback on were:

    Russ> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to
    Russ> provide the short summaries at the end of the discussion
    Russ> period, or should we specify that the Project Secretary writes
    Russ> them?

    We could leave that up to the project secretary.
    I.E. allow the secretary to establish policies and procedures and refine
    them over time.
    Something like
    "The project secretary may require summaries of ballot proposals and may
    revise provided summaries."

    I'd imagine that this is one of those things where different project secretaries may view things differently depending on how comfortable
    they are summarizing.

    I think all too often we specify more than we need to in the
    constitution.

    Russ> * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in
    Russ> the rule on when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote
    Russ> after the end of the discussion period?

    I do not object.

    Russ> * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to
    Russ> describe the Project Secretary starting the vote?

    No, I'd prefer to keep call for a vote.

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

    iHUEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCYbI9CQAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dM0xAQDA4KWNYYOfPnP/p9gHHSe+MmrRPUKYbiTb9CtPHDNBdgD9GXsX/Ek4kWEE c+rlRKVW4Fmmz1PwVk6TOQ/KRhwc/gQ=
    =no3b
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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