Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >>... >> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways, >> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted >> amendments but not new ballot options, which makes little logical sense >> and constantly confuses people. There's no maximum discussion period >> defined, which means fixes for that risk introducing a filibuster. >> >> * Calling for votes is defined as a separate action from the end of the >> discussion period, but in practice the constitution allows any developer >> to call for a GR vote via an abuse of process that probably wasn't >> intended, and even apart from that, the set of people who can call for a >> vote is strange and not very defensible. >>... > > The process to shorten the discussion period is also suboptimal. > > In the latest GR the way the discussion period was shortened was > perceived by many as an anti-democratic attempt to suppress discussions > about the contents and alternative ballot options. > > And there was plenty left to discuss (including wording of ballot > options and secrecy of the vote) when the minimum discussion period > ended and the vote was called. > > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure > that shorter discussion periods would only happen when there is > consensus that nothing is left to be discussed. Would you expect a different result if that had been done in this case? There were certainly people objecting to things, but it seems to me that their views were correctly reflected in the vote results, in which case I'm wondering what would have been added by discussing it further. It's possible that there were people who were on holiday or some such, and thus missed the whole thing, but on the other hand it's also pretty clear that some people were at the end of their endurance ... perhaps they would have been driven to ignore the continuing discussion if it had gone on longer, and thus been disenfranchised. I don't think that one can automatically assume that more discussion is better. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature