Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:56:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to
> > the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not
> > have allocate time to participate in such discussion at this point of
> > the time. This is a matter of fairness.
> I completely agree that there is a concern of fairness here (and think it
> is exacerbated by the current rules for how to call for a vote).
> What do you think of the approach in my current proposal? The intent
> there is to make the minimum period long enough (and also provide a way to
> extend it by at least a week by proposing a placeholder ballot option if
> need be) to try to remedy this.
Generally speaking, while I am in favor of making the decision-making
process fairer and less subject to interpretation, I am not in favor of
making it faster.
Three weeks is already a very short time in Debian term.
A fast decision making process could quickly lead to the implosion of
It takes time to understand what will be the actual effect of a proposed
It happened that a number of developers did not understand what the
consequence of the vote was until after it was concluded. This is to be
The majority of DD do not vote for GR, and objectively the proportion of
stakeholders with voting right has been decreasing. This is to take into
Imagine a large red swirl here.