Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
> General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
> conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on
> our lists. Restricting them is not going to help the project.
> Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers
> to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it
> is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them
> a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because
> they are not preferred options, but compromises.
I agree, and I'm a bit concerned that everybody seems to think that it's
a good idea to increasing the number of required seconds, while I really
think that it's a terrible idea.
Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current
rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that
proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders?
| Lucas Nussbaum
| email@example.com http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |