Re: Draft proposal for resolution process change (v2)
Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> writes:
> I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to
> the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not
> have allocate time to participate in such discussion at this point of
> the time. This is a matter of fairness.
I completely agree that there is a concern of fairness here (and think it
is exacerbated by the current rules for how to call for a vote).
What do you think of the approach in my current proposal? The intent
there is to make the minimum period long enough (and also provide a way to
extend it by at least a week by proposing a placeholder ballot option if
need be) to try to remedy this.
I do think that at some point we have to rely on the escape hatch of
campaigning for a "none of the above" vote when the process seems too
rushed, since extending the discussion period indefinitely opens the
opposite problem of a party being able to delay action that the project
wants to take.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: