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

Bug#636783: minimum discussion period

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I would accept increasing the required number of stoppers to two
> (which is also the quorum for passing a resolution).

That's certainly preferable to one.

> And, secondly, that the ultimate outcome of separate votes on
> semantically related resolutions might be incoherent.

I *think* this would only be plausible in the case where multiple single
questions were voted on separately in parallel.  If the outcome of one
is known before voting starts on another, it ought to be possible to
phrase the choices in the later vote to avoid an incoherent result.

> One answer might be a procedural vote to decide what to vote on.

I've thought about this, too, and don't see the point either.

> This is why the Standard Resolution Procedure contemplates a proposal
> with a number of amendments, resulting in a set of variations to be
> dealt with in a single ballot.
> With Condorcet there is no problem with having many options on a
> ballot, apart from the additional cognitive load on the voters.  For
> the TC, and options proposed only by TC members, this is not going to
> be a problem.

You can say that, but from my perspective this was *exactly* the problem
with conflating the questions in the init system vote.  I understand
that you think this should/would not have been a problem.  I disagreed.

> (There is a tactical voting bug related to FD, which is actually the
> same bug as the supermajority bug and was introduced at the same time.
> We are going to fix that, and in the most recent dispute those of us
> who were aware of the bug were careful not to exploit it.)


> If I had known that you were prepared to act in the unilateral way you
> did even after I had clearly critised your abuse of the process, I
> wouldn't have supported the cancellation of my own vote.
> What you did was to ambush me to your tactical advantage.  We need a
> set of rules which do not tempt TC members into such dishonorable
> behaviour.

I completely agree that we want a set of rules that help us to avoid
dishonorable behavior, but I disagree with your assertion that I behaved
in a dishonorable way.  After much soul-searching and private discussion
with various of our peers, I ultimately took the only action available
to me under our constitution to avoid the train-wreck that I though
voting on conflated issues would cause.

Ian, it's completely ok for us to disagree on issues either technical or
procedural.  But it's *not* ok for you to continue to assert that I
acted in a dishonorable way during the init system votes.  Please stop.


Attachment: pgpJaE17iQ8Ce.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: