>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Carter <firstname.lastname@example.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 options. Those are the sorts of abuses I'm talking about. None of those happened in this election as far as I am aware.
Description: PGP signature