Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> That changes it from 5 to 4 seconds. It's unclear to me what I need to
> do with the discussion period because of this. If I process the message
> in order, I think this was accepted and A.1.4 changes the discussion
> period.
Yes, this was the intent. If a ballot option is accepted, the discussion
period changes. If sponsors of that ballot option then withdraw so that
it falls below the required number of sponsors, that triggers A.2.3, and
there's a 24-hour period where new sponsors can step forward. If that
does happen, there's no change to the ballot. If that doesn't happen, the
option is withdrawn, but as A.2.3 says, that doesn't change the discussion
period. So, either way, the discussion period is lengthened by the
initially accepted ballot option.
(The rationale here is that the discussion period is extended if there is
churn in the ballot because that probably means people are processing and
may need more time.)
That said, if someone sponsors a ballot option and then withdraws the
sponsorship before the secretary sees it, so that the secretary sees both
messages at the same time, I think it's entirely reasonable to just
disregard that sponsorship entirely.
So in other words I think either approach works at the secretary's
discretion, in the case where the threshold sponsorship was made and then
withdrawn before the secretary saw it.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: