Changing supermajority requirements

[Ansgar]

Hi,

the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem
excessive to me:

Constitution changes:

+---
| 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
| [...]
| 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...]
+---

Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1
majority. A 3:1 majority seems excessive for that reason and I would
suggest to change both of these to 2:1 for that reason.

I think a supermajority is fine for changing fundamental rules, so more
than a simple majority is okay.

Developer overriding tech ctte:

+---
| 4.1.4: Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the
| Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority.
+---

I think this is excessive: if a (simple) majority of developers is
unhappy about some technical decisions, we should probably not do them.
So in my opinion this should be a simple 1:1 majority.

Tech ctte overriding a developer:

+---
| 6.1.4: Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
|
| The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical
| course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires
| a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint
| made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's
| proposed solution should be implemented.
+---

I think this should only require a simple majority as well. Or at most
2:1, but I don't think there is a reason for it to be higher than a
simple majority.

Should we look at changing these?

Ansgar

[Jerome BENOIT]

Hello Ansgar,

On 22/11/2023 11:00, Ansgar wrote:
> Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1
> majority.

What is your country ?

Best,
Jerome




--
Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calc...@rezozer.net
AE28 AE15 710D FF1D 87E5 A762 3F92 19A6 7F36 C68B

[Bill Allombert]

Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem
> excessive to me:
>
> Constitution changes:
>
> +---
> | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> | [...]
> | 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...]
> +---
>
> Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1
> majority. A 3:1 majority seems excessive for that reason and I would
> suggest to change both of these to 2:1 for that reason.
>
> I think a supermajority is fine for changing fundamental rules, so more
> than a simple majority is okay.

Note that so far in almost no cases a GR failed due to the supermajority
requirement.
So it is difficult to read your proposal without thinking you have
ulterior motives, that maybe you should communicate ?

But note, Debian is not a country, we are free to join other similar
floss groups with or without leaving Debian.
The Foundation Documents are about the only things that all DD are
supposed to agree with. Changing is likely to alienate some of them
(and it did in the past) so they deserve some protection, just not
to racture the project.

Cheers,
Bill

[Nilesh Patra]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem
> > excessive to me:
> >
> > Constitution changes:
> >
> > +---
> > | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> > | [...]
> > | 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...]
> > +---
> >
> > Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1
> > majority. A 3:1 majority seems excessive for that reason and I would
> > suggest to change both of these to 2:1 for that reason.
> >
> > I think a supermajority is fine for changing fundamental rules, so more
> > than a simple majority is okay.
>
> Note that so far in almost no cases a GR failed due to the supermajority
> requirement.
> So it is difficult to read your proposal without thinking you have
> ulterior motives, that maybe you should communicate ?

+1.

It's be nice to know if there are any recent GRs that had 2:1 supermajority
but *not* 3:1 and it failed due to the same.

Best,
Nilesh