Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Sven Luther dijo [Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:01:17AM +0100]:
> > This proposal does not come from an abuse to the GR process, but to
> > generalized frustration about the way 2008_002 and specially 2008_003
> > were handled.
>
> But the reason for this are in no way related with the number of
> seconds, but rather in the way the debian project considers discussion
> consensus and such. It seems to me that most people see it more as a
> blood sport where everything is fine as long as his ideas win, than a
> process where there is respect for the ideas and convictions of others.
I do believe we have moved quite a bit from this problem, which was
way more real and bitter several years ago. Today, far more people are
willing to tone down their discussion patterns, and the discussion
quality is obviously thus improved. Sadly, I cannot but recognize the
aggressive pattern as one in which you repeatedly incurred, and that
led to your lamentable expulsion and this unique situation you call
censorship.
> In general, we should revisit the way we handle GRs, go away from the
> current process, where the first step of the vote is to make sure only
> ideas which have your support get on the ballot, instead of searching a
> ballot whose many options may give a chance of the voters to represent
> every possible opinion.
>
> I strongly believe that the amendment process is the one who is
> responsible for this issue.
> (...)
> We should modify the GR process to be something like :
>
> 1) Some DDs (5, 15, whatever) decide to have a vote about a topic.
> There is no actual text yet at this stage, just a topic, and the DDs
> have to give a motivation about why they want to have this topic voted
> on.
>
> 2) The main proposer of the vote is then made responsible of drafting
> a ballot, which will have enough orthogonal options to represent all
> the current of opinions in the project. To do this, he helds a
> discussion on -vote, whose objective is not to defend ones idea, but
> to make sure every current of ideas in debian is represented on the
> ballot. This step should be non confrontational, and not lead to wild
> debates. options should be added liberally, without the need of
> seconds, and are of the responsability of the proposer.
> The ballot options each should get a rationale and description as part
> of this process
>
> 3) Once the ballot is ready, the proposed ballot is posted on d-d-a or
> some other list reaching every developer, and a period of time (1 week
> ?) is set for people who missed step 2 to object to the ballot. During
> step 2 and 3, if the responsible of the vote proves stubborn, or
> refuses to add options, an appeal to the secretary, DPL or technical
> committee should be possible to avoid problems and couter-balance the
> power of the responsible of drafting the ballot.
> (...)
Umh... Although this somehow builds on the same premise than mine
(separating the topic from the options/amendments), I do not believe
it would lead to better results. The current process, where each
amendment is proposed by different people, ensures all the ideas with
enough backing will be represented in the ballot. If all options were
submitted by a single person (even with the posterior review process
you mention - There would be inertia against making subtle changes to
an already submitted ballot), the options represented in it would come
from a single person which holds a single opinion. Even if this is not
a conscious process, and ahs the best intention from the submitter.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: