Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org>:
>
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
> >> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>
> I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
> from Sam by now.
>
> >>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
> >>> to statements of principles will change a lot of opinions or votes this
> >>> deep into this discussion?
> >
> >> Evidently someone truly believes there is need for another round.
> >
> > I probably didn't express this well enough, but the reason why I was using
> > the phrasing that I did was to ask Ian and Matthew to think about whether
> > the work that they were planning on doing is as important as it seemed at
> > first glance.
>
> I think it plausibly might result in improvements either to that
> particular resolution (in the form of some concrete proposals to go with
> the statement of principles) or to a related resolution (in the form of
> tying some persuasive statement of principles to an extant set of
> concrete proposals).
>
> Also, I think in the circumstances its important that everyone gets a
> reasonable opportunity to revise their proposals, and that the GR is
> clearly a fair process. The DPL's recent actions have given a number of
> people disquiet in that regard.
While I really don't know whether they way things were handled were
actually the best way possible (both sides have pretty good reasons),
I do think it is definitely worth noting that the process was actually
fair. Sam has been transparent from the start on how he wants to
handle the discussion period length and also sent and email announcing
his intent to call for vote very soon - and people could have objected
to that strongly a long time ago. In addition, his initial ballot
options were also being prepared for a while, so people knew the GR
was coming. So, I am definitely sure that the process was fair, as it
was pretty transparent and also the same conditions applied to
everyone.
Whether it was actually good though to not wait a bit longer in this
particular instant, especially as discussion definitely didn't die
down yet, is something I am not so sure about. There are good
arguments for not dragging the discussion on for longer than it needs
to, but on the other hand stopping an option from being refined (even
just by accident) feels wrong too.
I wonder whether refinements, if they are not too major, could still
be incorporated before voting starts on the weekend.
Cheers,
Matthias
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Reply to: