Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. Wichert.
Description: PGP signature