[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)

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion
> > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week
> > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure
> > that shorter discussion periods would only happen when there is
> > consensus that nothing is left to be discussed.
> But K developers could have stopped this, right? (Per Now the
> constitution feels quite heavyweight on that ("sponsoring a resolution"),
> but I'd be surprised if the DPL would not have taken back the decision in
> that case (

There is a whole can of worms around at what times the DPL can make
or take back such a decision.

Can a voting period be varied when voting has already started?
Note that the discussion period of the RMS GR was varied after
the discussion period had already started.

Can be used to force a vote on a varied voting period
when voting is already ongoing?

Can be used to take back a varied voting period when
voting is already ongoing?

What would it mean in practice when either the 2 week voting period or 
the varied voting period ends while the decision on the variation is
on hold due to

Could have been used in the RMS GR to put the varying of the 
discussion period on hold after voting had already started?

> A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone else
> feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.

A single person whom we trust to upload anything to our archive.[1]

If the person thinks there is something left that should be discussed 
then there is no consensus, and if a DD is just trying to sabotage 
random things in Debian then GR discussion periods are not my biggest 

> Kind regards
> Philipp Kern


[1] ignoring the non-uploading special case

Reply to: