Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: >> >> Trying to be generous to one another and only tackle divisions when they >> are of central importance to the project is a good principle, but I think >> there are some divisions of central importance to the project, not >> everyone is going to agree on which divisions are of central importance, >> and six DDs have a right under the constitution to bring a GR to a vote. >> I'm also leery of getting into another situation where a vote is going to >> be worrisome but we have no framework to mitigate the effects because >> we've been overly hopeful that we could avoid any such vote. > > Six DDs can force a vote, but not necessarily a decision. Would a > higher quorum help to ensure that divisive issues remain moot unless > there is broader interest? I was wondering if we could allow expressions of disdain (anti-seconds?), such that a second would get cancelled out for every two DDs (or maybe a larger multiple?) that respond to a call for seconds with an anti-second. A proposal would then need to stay at above 6 seconds for some short period after the latest anti-second landed to be considered to have a properly seconded proposal. I'm not sure what one would want to do if a hundred anti-seconds landed just too late. That might of course be somewhat divisive too, since people may feel like they didn't get a fair hearing, but would allow the project to express a "Let's not go there" without having to discuss it for ages. Also, if the declarations of disdain needed to be public, that would disenfranchise anyone that's only going to vote in secret ballots. I suppose one could do the anti-seconding in secret, but in that case one would also need to allow at least some of the seconds to be secret as well, to have an even playing field, which all seems a bit complicated. Alternatively, we could just have this as an informal thing, where people get to somehow declare their reaction to a GR discussion, in a secret, rolling, self-selecting poll, with simple options like "please make this stop" or "feel free to continue" ... and the numbers get published. The proposer of something that's obviously unpopular then gets to decide if they're willing to continue pushing their idea anyway, regardless of the fact that it's got no chance of success, and is only going to get them a reputation for wasting everyone's time. They would of course also have the chance at that point of persuading a silent majority (on who's behalf they may think they speak) to express support in the poll, which may make the opposition realise that there is a wider spectrum of opinion than they thought, which may lead to better debate. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature