From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE3F615802F for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02711E0950; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F4A9E0950 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:11:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: Rich Freeman Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, John Helmert III , council@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council Meeting 2023-04-09: Call for Agenda Items In-Reply-To: (Rich Freeman's message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:41:57 -0400") References: Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:11:06 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b127927d-4da1-4b51-b32d-5587498dc9d9 X-Archives-Hash: 749c664d319e979e01d0b29373afb952 >>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:29=E2=80=AFAM Ulrich Mueller w= rote: >>=20 >> - Updating GLEP 39 requires an all-developers vote [4] > Minor suggestion: the text does not say whether this is a simple > majority or something else. It is probably worth a little thought, > and making it explicit. The metastructure reform (which was published as GLEP 39 later) was originally accepted in a Condorcet vote [1], which makes it somewhat difficult to compare it with a simple yes/no question. Voter turnout at the time was 100 votes out of 381 eligible voters (26.24% of participation) [2]. The master ballow is also still available [3]. So, I did a simple analysis, taking only the proposals "Oldschool-small-with-slacker-boot" (which was accepted), "Keep-current", and "Reopen-nominations" into account. (The idea is that preferring the accepted proposal to "Keep-current" is comparable with a "yes" vote.) - Comparing "Oldschool-small-with-slacker-boot" with "Keep-current": 67 voters ranked it above, 24 below, 9 with equal rank. - Comparing "Oldschool-small-with-slacker-boot" with "Reopen-nominations": 74 voters ranked it above, 17 below, 9 with equal rank. - Comparing "Oldschool-small-with-slacker-boot" with both, 63 voters ranked it above both, 28 below at least one of them, 9 with equal rank. > I realize this isn't the formal approval of the text, but it might > actually be a nice thing for Council to discuss. > To toss something out, I'd probably suggest at least a 60% majority of > those voting, simply because this is a fairly foundational document > and matters with only a slim majority probably should lead to more > deliberation. We should be careful there. For example, if I take the numbers from GLEP 77 [4]: - ratio of positive to negative votes of at least 2:1, - positive votes no less than 1/4 the number of active developers, then the original metastructure reform wouldn't have been accepted. With a ratio of 67:24 of positive to negative votes, it would have made the first criterion, but with only 67 positive votes out of 381 eligible voters, it would have failed the second one. Also, I am not sure if we could impose anything else than a simple majority for the upcoming vote. Even if we require a 60%, 2/3, or 3/4 majority or a certain quorum in the document, I believe it would only be applicable to future changes. Ulrich [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/f5ab9ccca62a5d5e0b7b7ab0= 156f19b3 [2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/dd313930e951d05c574c58a3= c20a6276 [3] https://marc.info/?l=3Dgentoo-dev&m=3D111876215822161 [4] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0077.html