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 --==============d26741711492231941=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmB+se8ACgkQLHwxRsGg ASGmZw//epMayYIFotRyG07F8wvZwToem9E7kdSU8hkkhUxsmXpL7+/OKSWEnlNT 3h3plT2m3BXBFJlwkHmlQsOnMz7xPb+pet1Asco9Ggd9zXI4KUFhVfFLlEiqT2nF 04X7FM5UFVuXiD8mO5pJOkl5ySgMsMy72R41gbe0CEFuIPCwDAR3fHS9IEs0wE8f L/FXb83X1c9jE7YnvoohW/pbjd7npZgvkFkzwea7OFhRX88orPSvFRWlo1rnfBdH FYpOKVh3K2Gtn4+1L1hvFuiEXsGi6MH5mQ0BOq17E4aD/ZnCmGF5161pBuZRDYwn evbkSlgO8WYyLcIIPHwBww/Jen/7NCfwRn7fvc813hl14w6TpGbtIULXc85EgRV9 9V/JvCeR5X/bzzsvu3WYAgn1bizfPiLLAKWnjHk0eo5k88/XS2keL+vzuR0E3iil yQ2yCoPxlbrmUHriFPIgDUtll9kJaFrrKMWUQakJPPLvtQNN+VDXHFJFYQhsY+IP sUbDe6iboAhS8beL4