Quoting Jonathan Carter (2021-04-19 20:37:32) > On 2021/04/19 20:18, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > The vote was actually two votes: > > > > a) Should Debian respond publicly as a project? (the "if) > > b) How should such a response read? (the "how") > > I agree with you, I've said something similar before, although instead > of saying it was two votes, I'd rather say it started out as a, and that > that was the initial intention of the GR, and then it morphed into b as > the additional options were added. Sam noted this phenomenon in his last > mail in this thread as a strategic abuse. I think it certainly could be > used as a strategic abuse and we should be weary of that, but I also > don't assign any bad intentions to the people who added options in this > particular vote, I don't think it was their intentions to purposely > change the nature of the vote in order to change the outcome of the > original vote, and I think it's more a failure of our process, but I > think in broad strokes we're about on the same page on this. I can see in hindsight how the addition of options could have been done deliberately to ruin the original intent of a "yes/no" style ballot. For my part in seconding multiple options and doing so with little hesitation was not with an aim to twist. Instead I was a) genuinely concerned with Debian as an organisation formally standing behind a message which I found contained allegations, and b) supported many options because I was worried about the limited time available for refining options. Had the process not been shortened then I would most likely have waited longer for others more well reasoned in their phrasing proposals to have come forward, and probably also (like I usually do) second only few options if any at all. I don't mean to blame those deciding to shorten the process - I do understand that their reasoning was well-intended. My point is that at least for me that shortening of processing time caused stress and more sloppy processing than might have been the case with more time. And, as pointed out by Sam and Jonathan, that stress could be seen as deliberate obstruction. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature