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

Possible third ballot option -- middle ground between choices (1) and (2)



Dear all,

I am interested in this informal proposal from Russ, which has not
received much explicit feedback:

On Sun 07 Nov 2021 at 03:53PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:

> 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    takes effect and cannot be withdrawn.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.

I have been studying Wouter's formal proposal and believe that the only
substantive difference with the quoted text is that where the quoted
text has a hard limit on the discussion period, Wouter's proposal
instead has a mechanism for objecting to further extensions.

Would someone else be able to confirm this reading, please?

If I'm right, I am considering proposing a third choice which is
identical to Wouter's, except it would drop the mechanism for objecting
to extensions beyond four weeks and reimpose a maximum discussion
period, which I am thinking of setting to four weeks.

I think this is a good middle ground between the two proposals we have
so far.  This third proposal

- is procedurally simple

- incorporates Russ's concern about overly long discussion periods, with
  a maximum that is only a little bit longer than his

- incorporates the idea that three weeks is very short in Debian terms

- should still allow the project to respond quickly when we mostly agree.

Many thanks to Russ and Wouter for all their work on this.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: