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

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)

Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> writes:

> 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 Debian.  It takes time to understand what will be the
> actual effect of a proposed resolution.

Thank you!  That helps me understand your position.

I'm sorry to focus so much on my specific proposal, but since it's what
I'm trying to put into a shape such that everyone is comfortable with it,
I kind of have to.  Do you believe my proposal makes decision-making
faster, and thus is objectionable under that criteria?

I believe that it doesn't, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The current rule is two weeks plus or minus a week via the DPL, after
which any developer -- the text doesn't say that but that's the result of
the current wording -- can call for a vote provided that the original GR
proposer doesn't accept amendments.  My proposal also says two weeks plus
or minus a week via the DPL, but if there are additional ballot options
the time automatically extends to three weeks.  I therefore think it
roughly maintains the current timing, and to the extent that it changes
it, it generally lengthens the discussion period by up to a week, although
it's possible to get a longer discussion period out of the current system
if the original GR proposer accepts a lot of amendments.

In other words, is the current proposal something that you would support
provided that the discussion period isn't made any shorter?

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: