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

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

    Theodore> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
    >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
    >> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
    >> this > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested
    >> in such > non-technical affairs.
    >> The vote in fact shows the opposite.  That interpretation of the
    >> result would be true if the majority of people voted for that as
    >> their first preference. They did not: it was the most-agreed upon
    >> preference between two ideologically opposite factions. The
    >> majority of voting DDs expressed a strong preference one way or
    >> the other.

ppp    Theodore> The division was not caused by our decision making
    Theodore> process; it was caused by the fact that this was naturally
    Theodore> a question for which there was nothing like unaminity
    Theodore> amongst the voting members.

    Theodore> It is unclear that any change in our voting procedures
    Theodore> could have made things any better.

Certainly in the systemd process there were a number of short comings
that came to light that are worth improving:

1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
strategic abuse.

2) The fact that a single person ends up calling for a vote has become
problematic in three important Debian elections now--one on the TC and
and two GRs.

3) It seems like we could do better surrounding discussion time

4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.

None of these would have made the decision different, but I think they
would together have improved the process.

However, I don't think any of the above needs a working group.
I think it needs a few people to come up with a proposal.
My understanding is that Russ and peb are working on such a proposal.
I've volunteered to help them but so far have only contributed some


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: