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

Re: Please wait a bit longer before calling for a vote

>>>>> "Ansgar" == Ansgar  <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:

    Ansgar> Hi, I would like to ask people to wait a bit longer before
    Ansgar> calling for a vote.  Michael Biebl said he is looking into
    Ansgar> drafting an alternative, but has been too busy with work in
    Ansgar> the last few days.  He would therefore like to have a bit
    Ansgar> more time to prepare.

I'm sorry, but I've been trying to work with Michael for a number of
months to get his input on these issues.  He has told me that the
problem is not me, but that even answering the question of why
responding to the mails I have sent is too emotionally difficult to
engage in.

He's been aware that I'm considering this issue since  September and has
known that I planned to propose a GR since my September/October bits

Michael has been invited to engage in this process repeatedly, but has
chosen not to do so.  There's nothing wrong with that.  We are all

However, when you choose to not engage with a discussion, you need to
gracefully accept that you lose influence.
Doing anything else means that you're trying to block the work of others
in a very disrespectful manner.

But there is a huge problem with trying to block forward motion at the
last minute with
a completely new option that no one has seen.

In this instance, blocking on Michael would be implementing exactly one
of the negative patterns Ian talks about in his proposal.

As we've discussed before, there are two significant costs to waiting:

* Many people have talked about the high costs of these discussions.
   I've seen comments to that effect on debian-devel and from multiple
   people on IRC.  There have been a lot of emails in this discussion.
   Following this has been a significant cost for all of us.   Dragging
   that out has costs.

* Delaying the CFV runs into significant  chance of having most of the
  vote be up against the holidays, making it harder for people to vote.
  Delaying the CFV into January leaves the discussion open way too long
  at least if you value  the concerns raised about the cost of the

Depending on how the discussion between Lucas and Ian goes, I can see
delaying the CFV for a couple of days while they hammer out amendments.

People who want to wait are free to rank further discussion above other
You can still express your preferences among the existing options while
ranking further discussion first.

I do not support delaying the CFV for an option that has not gained sponsors.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: