Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58) > 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? I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led to fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a higher likelihood that Debian would have decided to make a (more well-written) statement instead of the current outcome of not making a statement. I know that my own contribution in the process felt rushed, and that I thought at the time I seconded options 2 and 3 and 4 that I would have much preferred to instead have the time to discuss eventual merger of them instead of worrying that all of those views were presented at all on the ballot. Flaws of ambiguity in at least one of the texts were pointed out without having time to address it. For the record I don't say this as someone grumpy over the actual result in this vote: On the contrary the winning option was my first choice. Also, I *do* understand that for this specific vote there was a sense of urgency (especially for those introducing the vote). My point here is not that the concrete vote by all means should have not been rushed, but that I do believe that taking the current vote as a concrete example the time to prepare the ballot had a real effect on the outcome. > I don't think that one can automatically assume that more discussion > is better. I agree. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature