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

Re: Opposing strict time limits

>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
    Wouter> However, the problem I see with strict timings that cannot
    Wouter> be extended in any possible scenario is that we may end up
    Wouter> with a situation where one option cannot be fleshed out
    Wouter> entirely due to lack of time. I think it's unrealistic to
    Wouter> assume that in such a case everyone can be convinced to
    Wouter> postpone the vote by two weeks, *at least*, rather than
    Wouter> extend the discussion time by a few days in order to allow
    Wouter> the option that hasn't finished gathering enough seconds to
    Wouter> finish up and become acceptable to enough people.

I think this is interesting to explore.
It's important to me that there be a maximum time that discussions can
But I am open to the idea of being able to extend the discussion time
because you have k seconds interested in doing so even though you don't
yet have a ballot option.

I'll note that under Russ's proposal, you could do this by proposing a
ballot option like
"We'd like to explore mandating using rpm rather than dpkg, but need a
few days to flesh that out.  We will replace this ballot option before
the vote, but if somehow we don't, vote for this option if you'd like to
give us a chance to frame that in the next discussion."

That's clunky I grant you, and I'm definitely open to the idea that
rather than proposing a ballot option like that, k people could delay
the clock (but not more than the maximum discussion period) in order to
get an option onto the ballot.

    Wouter> So what I think is important is to allow for a way to get a
    Wouter> short amount of extra time, *once*, in order to finish up a
    Wouter> proposed ballot option.

I think what I propose above gives you that.

    Wouter> This could be accomplished as follows:

    Wouter> The process can be repeated as
    Wouter> long as the discussion time has not expired; but, crucially,
    Wouter> anyone who seconded a previous extension request cannot
    Wouter> second another one (although you can *request* another
    Wouter> extension if you want).

    Wouter> In practice this would mean that if you have a significant
    Wouter> level of support for extending the discussion time, you can
    Wouter> probably get the discussion time extended twice, and *maybe*
    Wouter> three times if you're lucky, but I think it highly unlikely
    Wouter> you'll be able to extend beyond that.

I'd have to think hard about whether to rank that proposal above or
below FD.
I prefer Russ's option, but given your goals I agree this sounds like a
good way to achieve them.

Reply to: