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

[Sam Hartman] Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)

Russ pointed out that I sent my message of support for the current
language about discussion timing only to him.
That's not very useful in terms of judging consensus, so here it is for
the list.

-------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 08:24:09 -0600

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no discussion of
    Russ> the timing of the GR discussion period, which I expected to be
    Russ> more controversial.  The scheme I'm proposing is relatively
    Russ> complex but allows the discussion period to vary from 1 week
    Russ> to 4 weeks based on how much ballot option activity there is
    Russ> and based on DPL actions.  If anyone is unhappy with that (if,
    Russ> for example, you think it's too complex or 4 weeks is too
    Russ> short or too long), now would be a good time to bring that up
    Russ> so that we can discuss it.

    Russ> Even if you want to do someething entirely different that you
    Russ> don't think I would agree with, I think it's worthwhile to
    Russ> hammer out other ballot options now so there's lots of
    Russ> opportunity for discussion and proofreading.

I think you strike a great compromise on the timing of discussion
There's a bit of flexibility available but the discussion period is
subject to a lot less manipulation  than under the current system.

Because there is a maximum discussion period and because all ballot
options are treated the same, I think the motivation for changing the
discussion period is smaller.

And yet we have seen cases for example  around one of the GRs dealing
with firmware where the discussion period was shortened and where there
was a complete lack of objection (at least in my reading of debian-vote
from the time).

So I think this is a good balance.
-------------------- End of forwarded message --------------------

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: