Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Hi Russ,
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. Sorry if it seems
like I hijacked your thread.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:04 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>
> I'm reading this as another message of support for a tied vote in the TC
> to result in an outcome of further discussion or to automatically set off
> a GR. Let me know if I misunderstood.
My point was broader. I envision nothing "automatic" but would leave
it instead to the TC Chair, in a living process, to precipitate an
outcome that survives public scrutiny and even outcry.
I base that demand on public leadership on my own modest experience in
city government (on a library commission, including as Chair).
Your concerns about tactical voting may be better handled by
observers—such as the press, or fearless advocates of transparency
like Adrian—while the process unfolds. For the writer of a
constitution, fear weakens the document's intuitive appeal, however
imprecise the wording may seem. One cannot legislate thoughtful or
honest conduct. Our best hope is to inspire it.
> I think the constitution is the wrong foundational document to look to for
> the "minds of the governed." The constitution is concerned primarily with
> the procedural details. We have to spell them out somewhere so that we
> have a shared basis to make hard decisions in a way that we've previously
> agreed would be fair (even if we're on the losing side).
Why focus solely on the defeat? Is the "hard decision" not in fact a
win for the group?
The constitution's projection of hardened confrontation entails a
terrible reflexivity: A 3:1 supermajority leaves no gray area. There
is no gentle nudge and no room for measurement. The maintainer was so
wrong, fixing it required the second-worst measure in the Debian
universe. (Expulsion being the most drastic.) No defeated maintainer
will go to bed that night. thinking "well I lost, but it was a close
call." I would like to give the system more wiggle room.
Perhaps one day Joey Hess will tell me why he thought the constitution
was "a toxic document" when he left. [1]
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html
> The reason for the rework of the TC process in this proposal is precisely
> because the TC's decision-making capabilities previously partially broke
> down in ways that left a lot of damage behind, including accusations of
> unfairness. This proposal would prevent the procedural circumstances that
> happened previously from happening again, in a way that I hope is more
> transparently fair and predictable than the current process.
Procedural safeguards do not build consensus—the all-elusive
project-wide goal the constitution so decidedly disavows. Maybe your
changes will not reduce the accusations of unfairness that prompted
them, and just silence them.
In another example of reflexivity, strong rules are a sign of
conflict. They are not needed—and rarely adopted—in peaceful and
easy-going communities.
> My experience in multiple heated debates in
> Debian, and in similar problems in other governance debates and on-line
> communities, is that having good, clear, and previously-agreed process is
> exactly what creates the space for people to be gracious and collaborative
> even when they strongly disagree with the opinions of others.
Please do not read my response as second-guessing your experience. I
am simply using this "space ... to be gracious and collaborative even"
though I "strongly disagree with the opinions of others".
> But I think the net long-term effect is to reduce the
> temperature.
How has it worked out so far? Thanks!
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
Reply to: