Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
>>>> So, really every other aspect of that process is malleable. In this
>>>> case, I it would be incredibly humble and poignant to initiate a
>>>> -project discussion prior to the official process since that sets the
>>>> clock in motion (i.e. someone could get antsy and call for seconds
>>>> before there's really been appropriate time for, yes, pre-discussion
>>>> to figure out if this is something the project actually wants).
>
> Wouldn't it be better to just not do that, rather than to use what feels
> like a somewhat elaborate workaround?
I wouldn't consider pre-discussion as a workaround, but more of a
courtesy and advance notice to give project members time to fully
consider the proposals and provide feedback.
> I understand that you're worried that the topic won't have time for
> sufficient discussion, but two weeks is actually quite a long time to
> discuss something. Also, there is nothing that requires us to call for a
> vote in two weeks; it's only a minimum discussion period.
>
> If we already have a discussion step, it feels to me like we should use
> that step for the discussion, and if there's something wrong with that
> discussion method, we should try to fix it rather than creating more
> steps.
I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with the current
discussion step, but giving project members access to the mind of the
tech committee in advance would be an incredibly humble thing to do.
I may be wrong, but I think this is the first time the tech committee
is actually using this constitutional power, so I think it is
incredibly important to tread lightly to avoid controversy.
But anyway, I've poured my mind out, and I don't want to get in the
way. You're certainly free to do as you choose, but keep in mind that
it's entirely appropriate for the project to be critical of new uses
of power.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: