Re: What does FD Mean
* Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):
> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> writes:
>
> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
> >> B FD, FD probably does map to no fairly well.
>
> Mathias> I would really like to avoid this situation, where FD is
> Mathias> expected to leave room for such wide interpretations,
> Mathias> especially if it is avoidable as easy as to put at least
> Mathias> some of the alternative options on the ballot. A ballot
> Mathias> with only 'yes' and 'FD' should IMO just not happen.
>
> I think it's fine in cases where you have fairly strong confidence that
> yes will win.
> Let's say that for some reason we really needed a project statement that
> the GPL was a DFSG-free license.
> I think yes|FD would be fine.
> Or for an example that actually happened, we needed a GR to replace
> chairman with chair in the constitution.
> In that case, I think yes|FD is fine.
I see your use case, but I still think that even on such a topic there could be
someone who thinks that the topic - for whatever reason - shouldn't be
discussed at all. Why should they vote FD?
NB: This applies in a way to the origin of the ongoing GR. For me the topic
like it was brought into Debian doesn't belong to our responsibilities. How
would we behave e.g. if someone from the ouside told us how we would have to
elect our DPL?
> Because if somehow FD wins, it's going to be a surprise.
May be. But expectations or assumptions shouldn't be the base for ballot
options.
> I do agree that when we can articulate it, a terminal response like "do
> nothing," is worth having on the ballot *if five people actually support
> that*.
>
> In the case of the current GR, I think we do have a wide range of ballot
> options.
I almost agree, see below.
> I'm reasonably sure that if FD wins it'll be because there's a
> split--people would rather have the question remain open than see their
> side lose, but no side can get a majority.
>
> I'm not sure that you can capture an option other than FD in such a
> situation.
> "do nothing," is not actually the same as leave the question unresolved.
You are pointing here to a completely valid and meaningful option that is in no
way covered by, yet even controversial to FD. I think that 'None of the
above' comes quite near to 'do nothing, leave the question unresolved', but it
would be indeed better to have it explicitely on the ballot.
With the use cases of GRs coming to my mind (I certainly forgot some) I would
consider as useful to have the following standard options on each ballot:
[... other options ... ]
[ ] Further discussion
[ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
[ ] None of the above
While I agree that we will never be able to put all options in every detail on
the ballots the basic choices above would remove a lot of stress and
uncertainty in the interpretation of FD.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
Reply to: