Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 4. The Project Leader has a casting vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. The
>> default option is "None of the above."
> Should this be, "unless specified elsewhere"?
I think I confused matters by how I showed the changes. This section is
specifically about GRs by the Developers. In that situation, the default
option is always "None of the above."
>> 6.3. Procedure
>>
>> 1. Resolution process.
>>
>> The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>> resolution for vote:
>>
>> 1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
>> This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option being
>> the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer of the
>> resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
> Here the default option is "Further discussion" as opposed to "none of
> the above". Is this intentional, or was this a historical artifact?
This was intentional. I think that the default option for the TC is
different than that for a GR because the TC have a project obligation to
attempt to arrive at a decision, whereas it is more common for the
Developers in a GR to decide they don't want to say anything at all.
That said, I don't feel strongly about it.
> Also, as stated here in 6.3.1.1, it appears that any member of the TC
> may propose a resolution... on any subject they want? I'm guessing the
> unstated presumption is this is related to a subject under discussion by
> the TC. Should this be stated explicitly?
I can if folks feel the need, but I think it's fairly obvious in context
that this is constrained by the 6.1 Powers section slightly above this
section. (For whatever it's worth, this is also not a change; the
existing text just says "A draft resolution or amendment may be proposed
by any member of the Technical Committee.")
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: