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

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl> writes:
>  Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  >> Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
>  >> formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
>  >> feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely on these votes.
>  Wichert> Ahum? The non-free issue a) hasn't had a call for votes
>  Wichert> yet. I announced I want to decide this via a vote, which
>  Wichert> would be your formal proposal.

Your first and second point seem to be basically the same: you
think the current method is not visible enough. There are currently
no rules or guidelines that state how exactly proposals, seconds
and cfv's should be made. 

Can you think of a set of simple guidelines for this? Most people
so far seem to want us to spam every possible debian list with
this information, but I feel that is a very bad solution.

>         Thirdly, I wouldrather we not turn everything automatically
>  into a general resolution from the word go. Set up a floater, or
>  something, and let people chew it out a bit.

It hasn't been possible for long now to use general resolutions, I think
we need some more experience with them to see for what they are fit and
what can better be decided using other means.

I still think the moving-non-free proposal is fit for decision via a
general solution by the way.

>         I think in this case a two week discussion period is nowhere
>  near long enough for a contentios issue like this. 

This specific issue has been discussed at length at least once this
year, and at least twice last year. Both times the discussions lasted
about 2 weeks and then died off. If the discussion is still raging
next week and new arguments are being made I can postpone issueing
the call for votes, but I don't expect that to be necessary.


Attachment: pgp3YcVpIg0Ps.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: