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

Re: Filibustering general resolutions

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:21:40 -0400, Benj Mako Hill <mako@debian.org> said: 

>> quote who="Manoj Srivastava" date="Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM
>> -0500"> 
>> The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if
>> it feels like doing anything about it, of course.

> It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit
> (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems
> like the natural solution.

        Not ideal. There can be legitimately large intervals in
 refining a project, in which people do not feel there is an attempt
 to filibuster. Ideally, human judgement should be involved --
 replacing judgement by automata or hard coded deadlines is not the
 way to go.

        Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal
 proposal, allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short
 (say, impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks). This means not only that
 the interval is large, but a number of developers also feel that the
 resolution is being stalled deliberately.

        This way, there is still a minimum about 8 weeks to come up
 with proposals (6+2), so there is a reasonable assurance that no
 legitimate proposals shall be left off the table due to someone
 rushing things through, and yet there is a upper limit to the

>> But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers.

> It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and
> intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or
> is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something.

        The past is not always prologue.

        As the project grows, and apparently more polarized, it is
 easy to find K + 1 developers  at the extreme ends of any
 postiion. As the project grows, so do the extent that people go to to
 get their ends met (I'll refrain from pointing out the latest
 proposals on -vote).

> This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so
> I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to.

        Umm, what in my mail conveyed urgency? I do think that we
 ought to close the loopholes in the constitution sooner rather than
 later, under the gun, but it is a simple change.

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of
Providence. The Earl of Birkenhead
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: