[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#636783: TC constitutional issues

Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

>>  * Possible minimum discussion period for TC resolutions.

> I'd prefer this not change.  The circumstances that led to my recent use
> of no-wait CFVs was extremely unusual, and in the past we've used this
> ability to quickly come to closure on issues where there was strong
> consensus.  However, if others on the TC also want to impose a
> (reasonably short) minimum discussion period, I guess I'm ok with it.

Adding a minimum discussion period means that any dispute over
construction of a ballot will always be resolved in favor of adding more
ballot options.  That may be fine and people should just vote down all the
other options.  I'm not sure what I think about that.  I have a vague but
unsubstantiated feeling that lots of ballot options leads to a higher
likelihood of weird edge cases and tactical cases in the voting system,
but maybe it doesn't if we fix the FD dropping issue that we specifically
ran into.

An alternative would be to have an explicit cloture vote in the case of a
dispute over adding more options to a ballot, or some other similar level
of indirection such as a vote over what ballot to vote on.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: