[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)

Steve Langasek dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:53:02PM -0700]:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> > > with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> > > with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
> > > crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote.
> > You are saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the outcome 
> > of the first GR, they should start a second GR that repeals the first GR
> > and replaces it with something better as soon as the results of the 
> > first GR are posted.
> Not exactly.  I'm saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the
> outcome of the first GR, *and believe it could be overturned with a better
> worded option*, they should start a second GR.

Cfr. the three votes on declassifying debian-private:


The first vote mandated the declassification of debian-private after a
three year period for "historical or ongoing significance". Eleven
years later, it became clear this mandate was untenable, and a second
GR was proposed to repeal it and set up a clearer set of rules
allowing for selective declassification under a given procedure. This
second GR did not succeed. A couple of months later, I proposed a
third GR, with the original text identical to the second one's. The
third GR had two amendments; the three options were ranked above FD,
and one of the amendments was chosen.

So, yes, a similar procedure could be done WRT any other GR decision
we have so far taken.

Well, except for de-electing a previous DPL whose term has already
finished, I guess ;-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: