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 takes effect and cannot be withdrawn.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