Re: Opposing strict time limits

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

It looks like discussion of this option has died down, so now is probably
a good time for me to express my personal opinion for why I prefer my
option, now that it hopefully won't skew any of the discussion from
others.

I understand your analysis for why you don't want a fixed time limit on
discussion, and I think we're just coming to this with different
assumptions and preferences.  What I see in your analysis is a focus on
getting the best ballot options possible and a belief that more discussion
leads to better options.  I'm dubious this is true (I think this is a
matter of opinion on which we're unlikely to convince each other), and
also don't feel like my personal view is represented in your analysis:
that arriving at a decision in a timely fashion is usually more important
than getting the absolute best options on the ballot, that longer
discussion periods are often destructive to project unity rather than
leading to better decisions, and that long discussion periods increase the
burden of anyone who wants to address an issue via GR and therefore lead
to leaving problems unresolved because a GR is too much work.

A lot of the problems I see are deeply embedded and my proposal won't
resolve them all, but I think capping the maximum discussion period is far
more helpful than harmful in arriving at a good decision.  I think you may
be underestimating the benefits of a timely process, and overestimating
the benefits of developing another ballot option.  I also think that
setting a time limit on how long a GR proposer is expected to participate
in and guide a process will be helpful for allowing more people to be
willing to commit to that work.

Obviously, I could be wrong about these things!  But this is where I'm
coming from personally.

As mentioned earlier, I don't think one has to agree with all of my
beliefs about this process to support my proposal.  I think it's a
compromise (I'd prefer a shorter starting maximum discussion period
myself), and preserves a lot of the behavior of the existing system rather
than making a more significant change.  As mentioned earlier, I don't
think my proposal decreases the maximum length of the discussion process
in most circumstances; it just makes predictable and concrete what's
already implicit in our current system.

In a similar spirit, although your proposal isn't my preference and I'm
quite worried about the deleterious effects of allowing repeated
extensions of the discussion period, I think it's a very interesting
proposal.  The approach of exhausting votes for extending the discussion
period hadn't occurred to me, and I think it's a quite elegant way of
avoiding going all the way to a voting system for discussion period
extensions.  I'm inclined to support it above further discussion (although
I prefer my proposal).

One thing I did notice when re-reading it: the interaction between the DPL
varying the length of the discussion and the extensions seems complicated
and not entirely clear to me, and I'm also not sure I like timing the
extensions from the point at which they're sponsored as opposed to
relative to the current discussion period.  I wonder if you could make the
system even simpler, producing a scheme that has some admirable simplicity
advantages over my proposal.  Something like this:

1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed and
   sponsored.  The length of the discussion period starts at 1 week.

2. An extension to the discusison period may be proposed and sponsored
   according to the requirements for a new resolution.  As soon as a
   discussion period extension reaches the required number of sponsors, it
   takes effect and cannot be withdrawn.

3. The first two times the discussion period is extended add an additional
   week to the length of the discussion period.  Subsequent extensions add
   an additional 72 hours.

4. The proposer and sponsors of an extension to the discussion period may
   not propose or sponsor any additional extensions to the discussion
   period for the same General Resolution.

5. The discussion period may not be extended beyond six weeks.

and then drop not only the language about extending the discussion period
when the ballot changes but also all the language for the DPL varying the
length of the discussion period, and use this system as the only mechanism
for changing the length of the discussion period.

This preserves the same minimum discussion period (1 week), but makes it
very easy to extend it to two weeks and moderately easy to extend it to
three weeks.  This will probably happen for all but the most urgent and
uncontroversial GRs.  It also entirely avoids the problem (still present
in my proposal) of the DPL having to make an often-politicized decision
about varying the discussion period.

(I also agree with Sam's comment that a note about when an extension of
the discussion period is appropriate would probably be useful, although I
did not attempt to incorporate that into this proposal.)

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