Re: Draft GR for resolution process changes
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
> Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
> Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
> Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
> Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Would it make
> Charles> sense to limit the total number of sponsors, and to only
> Charles> allow developers to sponsor one option ?
> I don't understand this concern very well.
> If some of your sponsors don't like an amendment you accepted you can
> withdraw.
> So long as you have k sponsors remaining, the option can stay on the
> ballot.
> What am I missing that leads to your concern?
I think it's a little bit inobvious that the correct thing to do in this
case is to withdraw as proposer of the original proposal and then make a
new ballot option proposal and have the non-dissenting sponsors of the
original sponsor that one instead, although I agree that ends up at the
same place. Hm, and fixing the number of sponsors, while it may make
needing to do that less likely, doesn't remove the chance that one may
need to do that to accept a major amendment.
I was also thinking of the fact that Kurt has had to ask people in the
past to not "pile on" more sponsorships because it makes his tracking for
the web site and similar purposes more tedious, so if we have some other
reason to fix this anyway, it might be worth taking care of that.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: