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

Re: Opposing strict time limits

>>>>> "Nikolaus" == Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:

    Nikolaus> On Oct 22 2021, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
    >> I also believe that a ballot with options that were written by
    >> people who do not support that option will usually result in a
    >> cluttered ballot, with various options that are almost but not
    >> quite the same thing, and options that are irrelevant noise and
    >> which will never win. I think this behavior should be discouraged
    >> if not outright forbidden (although, again, I'm not sure how to
    >> forbid them),

    Nikolaus> How about something like this?

    Nikolaus> "My proposing or seconding a ballot option, every
    Nikolaus> proposer/amender commits to rank this option above FD and
    Nikolaus> (in case of multiple ballot options) higher than at least
    Nikolaus> half of all the options. Should the proposer/amender's
    Nikolaus> ballot not confirm reflect this at the time of the vote,
    Nikolaus> proposer's/amender's vote will not be counted."

Wouter and I are going to disagree on this, but I actually think that
the work I did during the latest systemd vote significantly helped move
the discussion forward.  By trying to listen to various sides and trying
to present several options I think I managed to frame the process in a
way that was more constructive.

I'm sure that process can be refined.  But I'd rather see DPLs do that
work more rather than less.

I also don't want to see that work restricted to the DPL.  In many cases
I'd rather see ballot options drafted by people in the middle rather
than by strong proponents of a polarized position.

I'll note that it seems very likely that all the options I proposed
would have been preferred to FD.  (We don't quite know for sure because
Proposal C was withdrawn in favor of Proposal F).

The restrictions you propose would make this sort of framing the
discussion and putting together a slate more difficult, and so I think
it's a really bad idea because I think it takes away one of the tools
that shows promise in reducing conflict in Debian.

Even if you agree with wouter's goal, I think there are a couple of

1) Remember that we want to move toward secret ballots.
I think your proposal is either impossible to implement with secret
ballots, impossible to verify, or exposes enough information that it
would compromise secrecy.  That depends on exactly how the secretary
chose to implement secret ballots and your proposal.

2) Your proposal gets in the way of people changing your mind.  In
effect, you're asking people to lock in their positions.  That
contributes to the sort of polarization and conflict that I'd like to
see us avoid.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: