[gentoo-project] [RFC] pre-GLEP: Gentoo General Resolution

[Michał Górny]

Hi, everyone.

The text of a new GLEP proposal follows.  The GLEP implements a General
Resolution mechanism based on the one in Debian; the idea was initially
proposed by Matthias Maier [1]; however, he didn't manage to find time
to write the GLEP.

Please review the proposed text and let me know what you think.  Please
note that the numbers presented have been chosen arbitrarily and are up
for discussion.

[1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/973be0a662b3cc74aa118a1128dcac9e


---
GLEP: 9999
Title: Gentoo General Resolution
Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
Type: Standards Track
Status: Draft
Version: 1
Created: 2018-06-22
Last-Modified: 2018-06-28
Post-History: 
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Requires: 
Replaces: 
---

Abstract
========

This GLEP defines the procedure of a ‘general resolution’ that can
be used by developers to enforce Council's responsibility towards their
electorate.  The general resolution can be used to overrule a Council
decision or disband the Council with a 2:1 majority vote of all
developers.


Motivation
==========

The GLEP 39 metastructure defines the Council as an elected body
of Gentoo developer representatives.  The Council decides on global
issues and handles appeals from disciplinary actions.  While the Council
should naturally represent their electorate, the metastructure does not
define a precise way of exercising this responsibility.  [#GLEP39]_

In the past, a few developers have expressed their dissatisfaction with
some of the Council decisions.  However, the Council members lacked
a good way of determining whether those opinions expressed the feelings
of the majority of developers, or were limited to a small group.
At the same time, disagreeing developers had no way of answering
the same question without raising inevitable hostility between
developers.

This GLEP aims to introduce a mechanism of a ‘general resolution’ that
can be used by developers to override Council decisions, or initiate
a vote of no confidence against the Council.  This introduces a clear
method of expressing and verifying disagreement with the proceedings
of the Council at any point during its term.

This mechanism is inspired by the ‘general resolution’ defined
by the Debian Constitution [#DEBIAN-CONSTITUTION]_.  It has been
originally suggested by Matthias Maier [#MAIER-20180403]_.


Specification
=============

Possible subjects for a general resolution
------------------------------------------

The general resolution provides for the following possibilities:

1. Overruling (voiding) any Council decision, provided that:

   a. the Council decision in question is final (i.e. a general
      resolution can not be used to bypass the Council),

   b. the decision can be made without disclosing any information that
      is considered confidential (e.g. appeals of disciplinary actions
      cannot be the subject of a general resolution).

2. Initiating a vote of no confidence against Council members, resulting
   in a new Council election.


Formal procedure of a general resolution
----------------------------------------

The general resolution mechanism is defined as follows:

1. A Gentoo developer (or a group of Gentoo developers) defines
   the subject of the general resolution --- the specific motion
   to void, or other request as defined in the previous section.

2. The requestor gathers initial support for their proposal.  In order
   for general resolution vote to be possible, the request needs to
   be supported by *N1* developers.  Developers second the request
   by stating their approval along with the subject of the general
   resolution.  This shall happen in text form with an OpenPGP-signed
   e-mail sent to the original requestor.

3. Once the signed approvals of *N1* developers are collected,
   the requestor sends a ‘Request for a general resolution’
   to the gentoo-project mailing list.  The request shall include
   the subject of the resolution, all signed approvals
   from the seconding developers, and a rationale for further
   discussion.  The discussion is open for at least two weeks.

4. The elections project shall confirm that all formal requirements
   for a general resolution are fulfilled, and shall state a timeline
   for voting.  The voting period shall start no sooner than two weeks
   after the request, and shall last for two weeks.  All active Gentoo
   developers at the time when the request is published on the mailing
   list are eligible to vote.

5. The developers vote on the motion of the general resolution.
   In order for the motion to pass, it must result in a ratio
   of positive to negative votes of at least 2:1.  Additionally,
   the number of positive votes must be at least *N2*.

The developer counts are initially defined as:

- *N1*: 2 times the square root of the number of active Gentoo
  developers,

- *N2*: one fourth of active Gentoo developers but no less than *N1*.

The numbers are not rounded.  All quorums are defined as ‘no less than’.


Rationale
=========

Limitations in subject
----------------------

The main purpose of the general resolution mechanism is to provide a way
for developers to overrule Council decisions or to disband the Council
whenever necessary.  It is not meant to be used as a regular procedure
for making decisions.  Its limitations and the procedure has been
specifically designed to focus on that.

Most notably, only final Council decisions can be overruled
via a general resolution.  This aims to prevent developers
from attempting to bypass the Council and abuse the general resolution
as a generic decision-making process.  Furthermore, for simplicity
the general resolution does not provide means to alter the motion
or make a new one --- it only provides for voiding
the previously-approved motion.

The general resolution involves a vote of all developers.  For this
reason, it is essential that all developers know the rationale
for the request and have access to all the data.  This is why
the process involves a public discussion prior to the vote, and why it
can't be used for the purposes of cancelling disciplinary actions.
If developers believe that the Council is unjustly rejecting
disciplinary action appeals, they can request the vote of no confidence.

The alternative option of a vote of no confidence is provided for
the case when developers believe that Council members are repeatedly
neglecting their duty towards the developers.  This option makes it
possible to disband the Council mid-term and run a new Council election.
If the vote of no confidence passes, the Council members lose their
seats immediately and there is no Council until the election finishes.


Limitations in procedure
------------------------

Since the general resolution requires a vote of all developers, this
GLEP provides further procedural restrictions in order to prevent
developers from abusing the process to repeatedly call all-developer
votes.

Most notably, the general resolution vote can be called only
if the required number of developers second the motion first.  It is
recommended that the initial support is collected via private channels,
to avoid creating unnecessary peaks of ‘me too’ traffic on the Gentoo
mailing lists.  OpenPGP signatures are used to confirm the authenticity
of developer support; the signed messages are required to contain
the original motion in order to prevent reusing earlier approvals
for a new motion.

The minimal number of developers initially supporting the general
resolution has been selected to prevent abuse by small groups
of developers while making it possible to actually collect support
for justified use of general resolution.

The 2:1 majority of votes requirement, as well as quorum, also mean
to discourage developers from trying to abuse the process.  Since
the decisions made this way indicate serious accusations towards
the Council members, it is important that they are actually supported
by significant population of developers.

The quorum (*N2*, defined as one fourth of active developers) is
intentionally lower than the turnout at the recent Council elections
(39% in 2017, 37% in 2016).  It is defined in terms of positive votes
in order to satisfy the criterium of monotonicity (i.e. prevent ‘no’
votes from helping the motion to pass).


The numbers in practice
-----------------------

Let's assume the developer count to be 200 active developers.

*N1* is defined as twice the square root of 200 then which equals
approximate 28.3 developers.  Therefore, in order to call for general
resolution one does need the support of 29 developers.  The number does
not grow quick with new developers being admitted — it would be 34.6
for 300 developers, 40 for 400 developers.

*N2* is defined as one fourth of active developers, and the majority
of votes is defined as 2:1.  This means that for a motion to pass, it
must be approved by at least 50 active developers, with no more than
25 developers actively opposing it.  For every developer voting ‘no’
above the 25, at least two developers need to vote ‘yes’ for the motion
to pass.


Example procedure of a general resolution
-----------------------------------------

Let's consider the following example.  On 2018-02-30 the Council has
passed a motion that changed the default init system for Gentoo
to systemd.  The developer community at large seems to disagree with
this decision.  The developer community consists of 200 developers.

One of the developers puts forward the following subject:

  Void the 2018-02-30 Council decision regarding changing the default
  init system to systemd.

He finds 28 other developers who disagree with the Council decision,
and sends this text to them.  They add a cleartext signature to it,
and send it back.  He adds his own signed subject, and prepares a text
file with 29 signed subjects.

At this point, he sends the following mail to gentoo-project:

  Dear developer community,

  I would like to call for a general resolution regarding the following
  subject:

    Void the 2018-02-30 Council decision regarding changing the default
    init system to systemd.

  I believe this was a very bad decision because ...

He appropriately attaches the signed approvals as a text file to
the mail.  At this point, the discussion on the topic can begin.

A member of elections project notices the request and starts processing
it.  First he determines the cutoff date for the vote and creates
an appropriate list of eligible developers.  He downloads the signed
approvals and uses GnuPG to verify all the signatures.  Afterwards, he
confirms that the keys used match the fingerprints of 29 distinct
developers at the cutoff date.

The elections project member sets up vote for the presented subject
to start two weeks from the initial mail.  He sends a reply
to the original post with the schedule and voting instructions.

Once the voting period is over, the elections project collect results.
They are as follows:

* 74 developers voted ‘yes’,
* 37 developers voted ‘no’,
* remaining developers either abstained or did not vote.

Firstly, the quorum is verified.  In this instance, 50 ‘yes’ votes are
required to satisfy the quorum.  Since 74 developers have voted ‘yes’,
the quorum is satisfied.

Secondly, the ratio is verified.  Since 37 developers have voted ‘no’,
there needs to be at least 74 ‘yes’.  Since exactly 74 developers have
voted ‘yes’, the motion passes.

The Council decision is void then.  The previous default init system
is restored.


Backwards Compatibility
=======================

n/a


Reference Implementation
========================

n/a


References
==========

.. [#GLEP39] GLEP 39: An "old-school" metastructure proposal with
   "boot for being a slacker"
   (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html)

.. [#DEBIAN-CONSTITUTION] Debian Constitution
   (https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html)

.. [#MAIER-20180403] Matthias Maier, Re: [gentoo-project] Call for
   agenda items - Council meeting 2018-04-08
   (https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/973be0a662b3cc74aa118a1128dcac9e)


Copyright
=========
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny