630 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
630 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
Constitution for the Debian Project (v1.7)
|
||
|
||
Version 1.7 ratified on August 14th, 2016. Supersedes Version 1.6
|
||
ratified on December 13th, 2015, Version 1.5 ratified on January 9th,
|
||
2015, Version 1.4 ratified on October 7th, 2007, Version 1.3 ratified
|
||
on September 24th, 2006, Version 1.2 ratified on October 29th, 2003 and
|
||
Version 1.1 ratified on June 21st, 2003, which itself supersedes
|
||
Version 1.0 ratified on December 2nd, 1998.
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
|
||
common cause to create a free operating system.
|
||
|
||
This document describes the organisational structure for formal
|
||
decision-making in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
|
||
Project or how it achieves them, or contain any policies except those
|
||
directly related to the decision-making process.
|
||
|
||
2. Decision-making bodies and individuals
|
||
|
||
Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the following:
|
||
1. The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
|
||
2. The Project Leader;
|
||
3. The Technical Committee and/or its Chair;
|
||
4. The individual Developer working on a particular task;
|
||
5. Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks;
|
||
6. The Project Secretary.
|
||
|
||
Most of the remainder of this document will outline the powers of these
|
||
bodies, their composition and appointment, and the procedure for their
|
||
decision-making. The powers of a person or body may be subject to
|
||
review and/or limitation by others; in this case the reviewing body or
|
||
person's entry will state this. In the list above, a person or body is
|
||
usually listed before any people or bodies whose decisions they can
|
||
overrule or who they (help) appoint - but not everyone listed earlier
|
||
can overrule everyone listed later.
|
||
|
||
2.1. General rules
|
||
|
||
1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
|
||
work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
|
||
has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
|
||
However, they must not actively work against these rules and
|
||
decisions properly made under them.
|
||
2. A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader,
|
||
Project Secretary and the Chair of the Technical Committee must be
|
||
distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their
|
||
own Delegate.
|
||
3. A person may leave the Project or resign from a particular post
|
||
they hold, at any time, by stating so publicly.
|
||
|
||
3. Individual Developers
|
||
|
||
3.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
An individual Developer may
|
||
1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their
|
||
own work;
|
||
2. propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions;
|
||
3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections;
|
||
4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections.
|
||
|
||
3.2. Composition and appointment
|
||
|
||
1. Developers are volunteers who agree to further the aims of the
|
||
Project insofar as they participate in it, and who maintain
|
||
package(s) for the Project or do other work which the Project
|
||
Leader's Delegate(s) consider worthwhile.
|
||
2. The Project Leader's Delegate(s) may choose not to admit new
|
||
Developers, or expel existing Developers. If the Developers feel
|
||
that the Delegates are abusing their authority they can of course
|
||
override the decision by way of General Resolution - see <20>4.1(3),
|
||
<20>4.2.
|
||
|
||
3.3. Procedure
|
||
|
||
Developers may make these decisions as they see fit.
|
||
|
||
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
|
||
|
||
4.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
Together, the Developers may:
|
||
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
|
||
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
|
||
3. Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the
|
||
Project Leader or a Delegate.
|
||
4. Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the
|
||
Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority.
|
||
5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
|
||
statements.
|
||
These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
|
||
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
|
||
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
|
||
software must meet.
|
||
They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
|
||
1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
|
||
critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
|
||
2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian Social
|
||
Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
|
||
3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
|
||
supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and existing
|
||
ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation Documents in
|
||
this constitution.
|
||
6. Make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to
|
||
Debian. (See <20>9.).
|
||
7. In case of a disagreement between the project leader and the
|
||
incumbent secretary, appoint a new secretary.
|
||
|
||
4.2. Procedure
|
||
|
||
1. The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
|
||
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
|
||
and sponsored by at least K other Developers, or if proposed by the
|
||
Project Leader or the Technical Committee.
|
||
2. Delaying a decision by the Project Leader or their Delegate:
|
||
1. If the Project Leader or their Delegate, or the Technical
|
||
Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override
|
||
them by passing a resolution to do so; see <20>4.1(3).
|
||
2. If such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers,
|
||
or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the
|
||
resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided
|
||
that resolution itself says so).
|
||
3. If the original decision was to change a discussion period or
|
||
a voting period, or the resolution is to override the
|
||
Technical Committee, then only K Developers need to sponsor
|
||
the resolution to be able to put the decision immediately on
|
||
hold.
|
||
4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
|
||
determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote
|
||
on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the
|
||
original decision will be delayed until then. There is no
|
||
quorum for this immediate procedural vote.
|
||
5. If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original
|
||
decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted.
|
||
3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
|
||
results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote
|
||
the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting period
|
||
is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the Project
|
||
Leader.
|
||
4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
|
||
to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
|
||
vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
|
||
5. Proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other formal
|
||
actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic
|
||
mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any
|
||
Developer may post there.
|
||
6. Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. The
|
||
Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change their
|
||
votes.
|
||
7. Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. K
|
||
is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not be integers
|
||
and are not rounded.
|
||
|
||
5. Project Leader
|
||
|
||
5.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
The Project Leader may:
|
||
1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee.
|
||
The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a
|
||
specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the
|
||
Technical Committee.
|
||
Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
|
||
Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
|
||
an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.
|
||
2. Lend authority to other Developers.
|
||
The Project Leader may make statements of support for points of
|
||
view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise;
|
||
these statements have force if and only if the Leader would be
|
||
empowered to make the decision in question.
|
||
3. Make any decision which requires urgent action.
|
||
This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually
|
||
urgent through lack of relevant action, unless there is a fixed
|
||
deadline.
|
||
4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.
|
||
5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.
|
||
6. Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the
|
||
Committee. (See <20>6.2.)
|
||
7. Use a casting vote when Developers vote.
|
||
The Project Leader also has a normal vote in such ballots.
|
||
8. Vary the discussion period for Developers' votes (as above).
|
||
9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
|
||
The Project Leader should attempt to participate in discussions
|
||
amongst the Developers in a helpful way which seeks to bring the
|
||
discussion to bear on the key issues at hand. The Project Leader
|
||
should not use the Leadership position to promote their own
|
||
personal views.
|
||
10. In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting
|
||
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See <20>9.).
|
||
Such decisions are communicated to the members by the Project
|
||
Leader or their Delegate(s). Major expenditures should be proposed
|
||
and debated on the mailing list before funds are disbursed.
|
||
11. Add or remove organizations from the list of trusted organizations
|
||
(see <20>9.3) that are authorized to accept and hold assets for
|
||
Debian. The evaluation and discussion leading up to such a decision
|
||
occurs on an electronic mailing list designated by the Project
|
||
Leader or their Delegate(s), on which any developer may post. There
|
||
is a minimum discussion period of two weeks before an organization
|
||
may be added to the list of trusted organizations.
|
||
|
||
5.2. Appointment
|
||
|
||
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
|
||
2. The election begins six weeks before the leadership post becomes
|
||
vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
|
||
3. For the first week any Developer may nominate themselves as a
|
||
candidate Project Leader, and summarize their plans for their term.
|
||
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
|
||
candidates should use this time for campaigning and discussion. If
|
||
there are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then
|
||
the nomination period is extended for an additional week,
|
||
repeatedly if necessary.
|
||
5. The next two weeks are the polling period during which Developers
|
||
may cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept
|
||
secret, even after the election is finished.
|
||
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
|
||
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
|
||
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
|
||
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
|
||
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
|
||
<20>A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
|
||
as for a General Resolution (<28>4.2) and the default option is "None
|
||
Of The Above".
|
||
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
|
||
|
||
5.3. Procedure
|
||
|
||
The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
|
||
consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
|
||
|
||
Where practical the Project Leader should informally solicit the views
|
||
of the Developers.
|
||
|
||
The Project Leader should avoid overemphasizing their own point of view
|
||
when making decisions in their capacity as Leader.
|
||
|
||
6. Technical committee
|
||
|
||
6.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
The Technical Committee may:
|
||
1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
|
||
This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals,
|
||
developers' reference materials, example packages and the behaviour
|
||
of non-experimental package building tools. (In each case the usual
|
||
maintainer of the relevant software or documentation makes
|
||
decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).)
|
||
2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions
|
||
overlap.
|
||
In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical
|
||
policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the
|
||
priorities of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a command
|
||
name, or about which package is responsible for a bug that both
|
||
maintainers agree is a bug, or about who should be the maintainer
|
||
for a package) the technical committee may decide the matter.
|
||
3. Make a decision when asked to do so.
|
||
Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the
|
||
Technical Committee, or seek advice from it.
|
||
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.
|
||
5. Offer advice.
|
||
The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its
|
||
views on any matter. Individual members may of course make informal
|
||
statements about their views and about the likely views of the
|
||
committee.
|
||
6. Together with the Project Leader, appoint new members to itself or
|
||
remove existing members. (See <20>6.2.)
|
||
7. Appoint the Chair of the Technical Committee.
|
||
The Chair is elected by the Committee from its members. All members
|
||
of the committee are automatically nominated; the committee votes
|
||
starting one week before the post will become vacant (or
|
||
immediately, if it is already too late). The members may vote by
|
||
public acclamation for any fellow committee member, including
|
||
themselves; there is no default option. The vote finishes when all
|
||
the members have voted, or when the voting period has ended. The
|
||
result is determined using the method specified in section A.6 of
|
||
the Standard Resolution Procedure.
|
||
8. The Chair can stand in for the Leader, together with the Secretary
|
||
As detailed in <20>7.1(2), the Chair of the Technical Committee and
|
||
the Project Secretary may together stand in for the Leader if there
|
||
is no Leader.
|
||
|
||
6.2. Composition
|
||
|
||
1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
|
||
usually have at least 4 members.
|
||
2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
|
||
recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose
|
||
(individually) to appoint them or not.
|
||
3. When there are 5 members or fewer the Technical Committee may
|
||
appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6.
|
||
4. When there have been 5 members or fewer for at least one week the
|
||
Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of
|
||
members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per
|
||
appointment.
|
||
5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
|
||
Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
|
||
6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
|
||
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
|
||
7. Term limit:
|
||
1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
|
||
who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one
|
||
of the two most senior members is set to expire on December
|
||
31st of that year.
|
||
2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
|
||
than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
|
||
at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project
|
||
longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more
|
||
than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant.
|
||
|
||
6.3. Procedure
|
||
|
||
1. The Technical Committee uses the Standard Resolution Procedure.
|
||
A draft resolution or amendment may be proposed by any member of
|
||
the Technical Committee. There is no minimum discussion period; the
|
||
voting period lasts for up to one week, or until the outcome is no
|
||
longer in doubt. Members may change their votes. There is a quorum
|
||
of two.
|
||
2. Details regarding voting
|
||
The Chair has a casting vote. When the Technical Committee votes
|
||
whether to override a Developer who also happens to be a member of
|
||
the Committee, that member may not vote (unless they are the Chair,
|
||
in which case they may use only their casting vote).
|
||
3. Public discussion and decision-making.
|
||
Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members
|
||
of the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public
|
||
discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the Committee.
|
||
4. Confidentiality of appointments.
|
||
The Technical Committee may hold confidential discussions via
|
||
private email or a private mailing list or other means to discuss
|
||
appointments to the Committee. However, votes on appointments must
|
||
be public.
|
||
5. No detailed design work.
|
||
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
|
||
and policies. Such design work should be carried out by individuals
|
||
privately or together and discussed in ordinary technical policy
|
||
and design forums.
|
||
The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
|
||
adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
|
||
been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
|
||
Individual members of the technical committee may of course
|
||
participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy
|
||
work.
|
||
6. Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.
|
||
The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until
|
||
efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed,
|
||
unless it has been asked to make a decision by the person or body
|
||
who would normally be responsible for it.
|
||
|
||
7. The Project Secretary
|
||
|
||
7.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
The Secretary:
|
||
1. Takes votes amongst the Developers, and determines the number and
|
||
identity of Developers, whenever this is required by the
|
||
constitution.
|
||
2. Can stand in for the Leader, together with the Chair of the
|
||
Technical Committee.
|
||
If there is no Project Leader then the Chair of the Technical
|
||
Committee and the Project Secretary may by joint agreement make
|
||
decisions if they consider it imperative to do so.
|
||
3. Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.
|
||
4. May delegate part or all of their authority to someone else, or
|
||
withdraw such a delegation at any time.
|
||
|
||
7.2. Appointment
|
||
|
||
The Project Secretary is appointed by the Project Leader and the
|
||
current Project Secretary.
|
||
|
||
If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree on
|
||
a new appointment, they must ask the Developers by way of General
|
||
Resolution to appoint a Secretary.
|
||
|
||
If there is no Project Secretary or the current Secretary is
|
||
unavailable and has not delegated authority for a decision then the
|
||
decision may be made or delegated by the Chair of the Technical
|
||
Committee, as Acting Secretary.
|
||
|
||
The Project Secretary's term of office is 1 year, at which point they
|
||
or another Secretary must be (re)appointed.
|
||
|
||
7.3. Procedure
|
||
|
||
The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
|
||
reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
|
||
Developers.
|
||
|
||
When acting together to stand in for an absent Project Leader the Chair
|
||
of the Technical Committee and the Project Secretary should make
|
||
decisions only when absolutely necessary and only when consistent with
|
||
the consensus of the Developers.
|
||
|
||
8. The Project Leader's Delegates
|
||
|
||
8.1. Powers
|
||
|
||
The Project Leader's Delegates:
|
||
1. have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;
|
||
2. may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly,
|
||
including approving or expelling Developers or designating people
|
||
as Developers who do not maintain packages. This is to avoid
|
||
concentration of power, particularly over membership as a
|
||
Developer, in the hands of the Project Leader.
|
||
|
||
8.2. Appointment
|
||
|
||
The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced
|
||
by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not
|
||
make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by
|
||
the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once
|
||
made.
|
||
|
||
8.3. Procedure
|
||
|
||
Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
|
||
implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
|
||
|
||
9. Assets held in trust for Debian
|
||
|
||
In most jurisdictions around the world, the Debian project is not in a
|
||
position to directly hold funds or other property. Therefore, property
|
||
has to be owned by any of a number of organisations as detailed in
|
||
<20>9.2.
|
||
|
||
Traditionally, SPI was the sole organisation authorized to hold
|
||
property and monies for the Debian Project. SPI was created in the U.S.
|
||
to hold money in trust there.
|
||
|
||
SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals. Debian
|
||
is grateful for the legal support framework offered by SPI.
|
||
|
||
9.1. Relationship with Associated Organizations
|
||
|
||
1. Debian Developers do not become agents or employees of
|
||
organisations holding assets in trust for Debian, or of each other,
|
||
or of persons in authority in the Debian Project, solely by the
|
||
virtue of being Debian Developers. A person acting as a Developer
|
||
does so as an individual, on their own behalf. Such organisations
|
||
may, of their own accord, establish relationships with individuals
|
||
who are also Debian developers.
|
||
|
||
9.2. Authority
|
||
|
||
1. An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority
|
||
regarding Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that
|
||
no decision by Debian with respect to any property held by the
|
||
organisation shall require it to act outside its legal authority.
|
||
2. Debian claims no authority over an organisation that holds assets
|
||
for Debian other than that over the use of property held in trust
|
||
for Debian.
|
||
|
||
9.3. Trusted organisations
|
||
|
||
Any donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a set
|
||
of organisations designated by the Project leader (or a delegate) to be
|
||
authorized to handle assets to be used for the Debian Project.
|
||
|
||
Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should undertake
|
||
reasonable obligations for the handling of such assets.
|
||
|
||
Debian maintains a public List of Trusted Organisations that accept
|
||
donations and hold assets in trust for Debian (including both tangible
|
||
property and intellectual property) that includes the commitments those
|
||
organisations have made as to how those assets will be handled.
|
||
|
||
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
|
||
|
||
These rules apply to communal decision-making by committees and
|
||
plebiscites, where stated above.
|
||
|
||
A.0. Proposal
|
||
|
||
The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
|
||
sponsored, as required.
|
||
|
||
A.1. Discussion and Amendment
|
||
|
||
1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed. Amendments
|
||
may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored according to the
|
||
requirements for a new resolution, or directly by the proposer of
|
||
the original resolution.
|
||
2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
|
||
which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
|
||
match.
|
||
3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
|
||
the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
|
||
of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
|
||
will be voted on.
|
||
4. If an amendment accepted by the original proposer is not to the
|
||
liking of others, they may propose another amendment to reverse the
|
||
earlier change (again, they must meet the requirements for proposer
|
||
and sponsor(s).)
|
||
5. The proposer of a resolution may suggest changes to the wordings of
|
||
amendments; these take effect if the proposer of the amendment
|
||
agrees and none of the sponsors object. In this case the changed
|
||
amendments will be voted on instead of the originals.
|
||
6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
|
||
errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
|
||
changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
|
||
within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is not
|
||
restarted.
|
||
|
||
A.2. Calling for a vote
|
||
|
||
1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
|
||
a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
|
||
elapsed.
|
||
2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on
|
||
that resolution and all related amendments.
|
||
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
|
||
wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
|
||
consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final
|
||
decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1),
|
||
7.1(3) and A.3(4).
|
||
4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last
|
||
formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was
|
||
proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted.
|
||
|
||
A.3. Voting procedure
|
||
|
||
1. Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a single
|
||
ballot that includes an option for the original resolution, each
|
||
amendment, and the default option (where applicable).
|
||
2. The default option must not have any supermajority requirements.
|
||
Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
|
||
have a 1:1 majority requirement.
|
||
3. The votes are counted according to the rules in A.6. The default
|
||
option is "Further Discussion", unless specified otherwise.
|
||
4. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
|
||
procedure.
|
||
|
||
A.4. Withdrawing resolutions or unaccepted amendments
|
||
|
||
The proposer of a resolution or unaccepted amendment may withdraw it.
|
||
In this case new proposers may come forward keep it 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.
|
||
|
||
A sponsor of a resolution or amendment (unless it has been accepted)
|
||
may withdraw.
|
||
|
||
If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
|
||
resolution has no proposer or not enough sponsors it will not be voted
|
||
on unless this is rectified before the resolution expires.
|
||
|
||
A.5. Expiry
|
||
|
||
If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
|
||
otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
|
||
that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of
|
||
the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.
|
||
|
||
The secretary may also include suggestions on how to proceed, if
|
||
appropriate.
|
||
|
||
A.6. Vote Counting
|
||
|
||
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
|
||
options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred to
|
||
all unranked options. Voters may rank options equally. Unranked
|
||
options are considered to be ranked equally with one another.
|
||
Details of how ballots may be filled out will be included in the
|
||
Call For Votes.
|
||
2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other than the
|
||
default option which do not receive at least R votes ranking that
|
||
option above the default option are dropped from consideration.
|
||
3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
|
||
by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
|
||
1. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who
|
||
prefer option A over option B.
|
||
2. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio
|
||
N, if V(A,D) is greater or equal to N * V(D,A) and V(A,D) is
|
||
strictly great
|
||
3. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority
|
||
ratio is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.
|
||
4. From the list of undropped options, we generate a list of pairwise
|
||
defeats.
|
||
1. An option A defeats an option B, if V(A,B) is strictly greater
|
||
than V(B,A).
|
||
5. From the list of [undropped] pairwise defeats, we generate a set of
|
||
transitive defeats.
|
||
1. An option A transitively defeats an option C if A defeats C or
|
||
if there is some other option B where A defeats B AND B
|
||
transitively defeats C.
|
||
6. We construct the Schwartz set from the set of transitive defeats.
|
||
1. An option A is in the Schwartz set if for all options B,
|
||
either A transitively defeats B, or B does not transitively
|
||
defeat A.
|
||
7. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we drop
|
||
the weakest such defeats from the list of pairwise defeats, and
|
||
return to step 5.
|
||
1. A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if V(A,X) is less
|
||
than V(B,Y). Also, (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) if V(A,X) is
|
||
equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
|
||
2. A weakest defeat is a defeat that has no other defeat weaker
|
||
than it. There may be more than one such defeat.
|
||
8. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the winner is
|
||
chosen from the options in the Schwartz set. If there is only one
|
||
such option, it is the winner. If there are multiple options, the
|
||
elector with the casting vote chooses which of those options wins.
|
||
|
||
Note: Options which the voters rank above the default option are
|
||
options they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default options
|
||
are options they find unacceptable.
|
||
|
||
When the Standard Resolution Procedure is to be used, the text which
|
||
refers to it must specify what is sufficient to have a draft resolution
|
||
proposed and/or sponsored, what the minimum discussion period is, and
|
||
what the voting period is. It must also specify any supermajority
|
||
and/or the quorum (and default option) to be used.
|
||
|
||
B. Use of language and typography
|
||
|
||
The present indicative ("is", for example) means that the statement is
|
||
a rule in this constitution. "May" or "can" indicates that the person
|
||
or body has discretion. "Should" means that it would be considered a
|
||
good thing if the sentence were obeyed, but it is not binding. Text
|
||
marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form part
|
||
of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in cases
|
||
of doubt.
|