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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

    Russ> Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet.  I
    Russ> got rather busy with non-Debian things for a bit.

    Russ> To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several
    Russ> significant issues and we need another revision.  I hope to
    Russ> finish that soon, at least by next weekend if not sooner.

    Russ> There are several things that I think are fairly
    Russ> straightforward to fix.  The open questions that I was hoping
    Russ> to get some further feedback on were:

    Russ> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to
    Russ> provide the short summaries at the end of the discussion
    Russ> period, or should we specify that the Project Secretary writes
    Russ> them?

We could leave that up to the project secretary.
I.E. allow the secretary to establish policies and procedures and refine
them over time.
Something like
"The project secretary may require summaries of ballot proposals and may
revise provided summaries."

I'd imagine that this is one of those things where different project
secretaries may view things differently depending on how comfortable
they are summarizing.

I think all too often we specify more than we need to in the

    Russ> * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in
    Russ> the rule on when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote
    Russ> after the end of the discussion period?

I do not object.

    Russ> * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to
    Russ> describe the Project Secretary starting the vote?

No, I'd prefer to keep call for a vote.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: