Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:21:40 -0400, Benj Mako Hill <email@example.com> said:
>> quote who="Manoj Srivastava" date="Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM
>> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C