Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)
I've lost track of who wrote:
> > > Suggest making this "None of the above" instead of "Further discussion"
> > > to avoid two different default options for TC decisions vs project
> > > decisions.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 10:28:55 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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.
Also a TC member but writing only on my own behalf. I agree with Gunnar
that NOTA seems fine as a default for TC decisions (except for choosing
the TC chair, which is special-cased to have no default).
When we're voting for a DPL, the default is already NOTA, which we've
always interpreted to mean the same thing as "re-open nominations"
(RON) in some other organizations' systems for electing officers:
constitutionally, we need a DPL, so NOTA winning the DPL election would
mean we need to find a different candidate who enough people can agree on
(and the way we would achieve that is by reopening nominations and hoping
someone more popular will volunteer). I think the equivalence between NOTA
and RON has always been uncontroversial. The only reason we don't have
this for the TC chair is that the TC chair has a fixed set of candidates
(the TC members) so reopening nominations would have no practical effect.
Similarly, when the TC has been asked for a decision, a win for NOTA
would mean none of our draft resolutions were accepted, so the decision
is unresolved and we would need to (loosely) "re-open nominations"
to get a better draft resolution that enough TC members can agree on.
In practice, it seems like NOTA/FD is unlikely to win a TC vote: the
only way I can think of for that to happen is if someone called the vote
prematurely, before we got close enough to consensus to be able to write
at least one option that a majority would vote above NOTA/FD.
If the TC is voting to *not* do something (for example if we have been
asked to overrule the foobar maintainer, but we have consensus that
the foobar maintainer was correct), then it seems we implement that by
voting on the resolution we have consensus for (in this case it would be
"formally decline to overrule foobar maintainer" > FD), rather than
putting up a resolution "overrule the foobar maintainer" that none of us
agree with and then voting FD > "overrule the foobar maintainer".
We could equally well do that by voting
"formally decline to overrule foobar maintainer" > NOTA.
smcv
Reply to: