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

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)



Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 12:50:25+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58)
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >>...
> > >> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
> > >>   which has repeatedly caused conflicts.  It only resets on accepted
> > >>   amendments but not new ballot options, which makes little logical sense
> > >>   and constantly confuses people.  There's no maximum discussion period
> > >>   defined, which means fixes for that risk introducing a filibuster.
> > >> 
> > >> * Calling for votes is defined as a separate action from the end of the
> > >>   discussion period, but in practice the constitution allows any developer
> > >>   to call for a GR vote via an abuse of process that probably wasn't
> > >>   intended, and even apart from that, the set of people who can call for a
> > >>   vote is strange and not very defensible.
> > >>...
> > >
> > > The process to shorten the discussion period is also suboptimal.
> > >
> > > In the latest GR the way the discussion period was shortened was 
> > > perceived by many as an anti-democratic attempt to suppress discussions 
> > > about the contents and alternative ballot options.
> > >
> > > And there was plenty left to discuss (including wording of ballot 
> > > options and secrecy of the vote) when the minimum discussion period
> > > ended and the vote was called.
> > >
> > > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion 
> > > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week 
> > > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure 
> > > that shorter discussion periods would only happen when there is 
> > > consensus that nothing is left to be discussed.
> > 
> > Would you expect a different result if that had been done in this case?
> 
> I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led to 
> fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a higher 
> likelihood that Debian would have decided to make a (more well-written) 
> statement instead of the current outcome of not making a statement.

History tends to show as far as we are concerned that the longer the
discussion, the more look-alike options come and the less the ballots
are easy to digest and fill in.

Regards,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: