Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi Lucas,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the
> current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to
> propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course
> fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it
> at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose
> additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current
> amendments.
I have no plans to proposed another amendment myself, no. I've actually not
given the discussions thus far as much attention as I would have liked to,
partially waiting for the dust to settle before properly evaluating the
options.
My concern about reducing the discussion period is one of perception.
You have the authority to reduce it as DPL. But you also authored one
of the amendments. There's nothing procedurally that prevents you
from exercising both rights, but I am concerned that whichever way the
voting goes, there will be a faction of people who will consider the
vote to have been compromised. I know that you are not attempting to
rush through a decision to get the outcome you desire; and I'm sure
none of our DD colleagues would accuse you of that either. But there's
a large peanut gallery watching the project at the moment, and any
perceived irregularity will be jumped on.
snip
> ...could be better to wait for the outcome of the present GR to vote
> on a TC resolution. And that TC resolution could have an impact on
> the release.
It would indeed be a shame if the release was delayed as a result of
this GR. One has to weigh up the risks of that, versus the risks I've
outlined above.
Reply to: