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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)



Russ Allbery dijo [Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:41:18PM -0800]:
> >>        1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution.
> >>           This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option
> >>           being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer
> >>           of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option.
> 
> > Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> > to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> > decisions.
> 
> This was discussed briefly earlier, and for whatever it's worth was
> intentional.  My reasoning was that when the TC is asked to make a
> decision, "None of the above" doesn't conclude that process.  In the TC
> case, it does seem to really mean "further discussion" in the sense that
> the TC hasn't resolved the issue in front of them and has to keep
> discussing it.
> 
> That said, I don't feel strongly about this and can change this if folks
> would prefer, particularly if TC members don't think that's the right way
> to go.

<speak-with hat="technical-committee-member" ability="just-me">
  I would prefer the change to extend also to the TC votes. I think
  it's clear that "none of the above" means we would not have an
  outcome to present, but I feel "none of the above" to be
  clearer.

  Besides, the TC does not only vote when mandated to make a decision;
  we could also host a vote on, say, prospective members to appoint to
  the TC. Take as an example bug #880014 — Had I not been appointed as
  a member, maybe there would be nothing left to discuss. Why mandate
  the then-TC to keep discussing my non-nomination ad nauseam?
</speak-with>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: