Bug#636783: TC minimum discussion period

[Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>]

On 28 June 2014 10:50, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> In the IRC meeting on May 22, we discussed several different approaches for
> handling the call for votes.  The one I favor is to introduce a formal
> cloture vote into the process.

I thought this made sense too.

> A cloture vote is a procedural up/down vote on whether to close debate on a
> question and move to a vote on the ballot.  ...

Here's an alternative strawman:

 - Any member of the TC may call for votes on a ballot at any time.
 - When calling for votes, the TC member may propose any combination
of resolutions they believe is appropriate to be considered on the
ballot, provided they fall under the ctte's constitutional powers.
 - When voting on the ballot, TC members may rank the proposed options
from 1 to n in the normal manner for Debian ballots.
 - An additional "Cloture" option will be automatically added to the ballot.
 - The Cloture option may only be marked "Y" to approve cloture, or
"N" to deny cloture.
 - The Cloture option is the default option for the SRP. A "Y" vote
for cloture is treated as ranking the default option below all others
(including unranked options). A "N" vote is treated as ranking the
default option above all others.
 - In the event that cloture fails (ie, the default option wins the
SRP), the TC members should discuss the reasons for the failure and
produce a new ballot that is able to pass cloture.

(SRP=Standard Resolution Procedure)

>  - Ballot options proposed during the cloture vote shall be included on the
>    ballot.

I don't think that's likely to be compatible with the "or when the
outcome is beyond doubt" provision. ie:

  "Let's vote on upstart vs systemd!"
  next ten minutes: "yes" "yes" "yes" "yes" "yes"
  "okay, here's the ballot!"

  three hours later: "what? no! i want option "upstart and must
support multiple systemds" on the ballot"
  "too bad, suckah"

To make that provision work, I think you'd have to have a minimum
voting period, in which case I don't think there's any value beyond
just having a minimum discussion period.

But ultimately, if a majority of the ctte want to vote on a particular
question that's within the ctte's remit, I don't see why any minority
should get to block them from having exactly that vote. I do think it
makes sense to formally establish that a majority do want to undertake
that vote though.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>