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

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group

>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> writes:

    Jonathan> 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")

    Jonathan> I agree with you, I've said something similar before,
    Jonathan> although instead of saying it was two votes, I'd rather
    Jonathan> say it started out as a, and that that was the initial
    Jonathan> intention of the GR, and then it morphed into b as the
    Jonathan> additional options were added. Sam noted this phenomenon
    Jonathan> in his last mail in this thread as a strategic abuse.

I'd like to be heard much differently.
The abuses I was thinking about are along much different lines.

I don't think having the ballot turn from something simple into
something more complex is abusive at all.
I think it's our voting system working as intended.

It's often very difficult to agree on what question to ask.
Our voting system doesn't require that.  In the systemd vote we
definitely never agreed what the question was, even though we came up
with an answer.

This discussion would have taken much longer if we had to produce a
ballot that was internally consistent where all the options focused on
one question.
It might make interpreting the results easier, but as we saw in the TC
discussions surrounding systemd, the challenge of coming up with the
ballot may become intractible.

Instead, some people viewed this as an election about how neutral Debian
should be.  Some people viewed it as a discussion of how much we should
support rms.
Some people focused on what we should say about rms.
And that's okay.
We'll never entirely be able to untangle all those answers.
But if we tried to, we might never end our discussions.

The sorts of abuses I was talking about have to do with powers of the
original proposer to muck with the process.
Steve could have dragged the process out as long as he wished by
accepting amendments.
Under a strict reading of the constitution, Steve could have made it
more difficult for other people to revise the wording of their ballot
Those are the sorts of abuses I'm talking about.
None of those happened in this election as far as I am aware.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: