Steve Langasek dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:53:02PM -0700]: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options, > > > with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction > > > with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly > > > on > > > crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote. > > > You are saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the outcome > > of the first GR, they should start a second GR that repeals the first GR > > and replaces it with something better as soon as the results of the > > first GR are posted. > > Not exactly. I'm saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the > outcome of the first GR, *and believe it could be overturned with a better > worded option*, they should start a second GR.
Cfr. the three votes on declassifying debian-private:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_002
https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_004
The first vote mandated the declassification of debian-private after a
three year period for "historical or ongoing significance". Eleven
years later, it became clear this mandate was untenable, and a second
GR was proposed to repeal it and set up a clearer set of rules
allowing for selective declassification under a given procedure. This
second GR did not succeed. A couple of months later, I proposed a
third GR, with the original text identical to the second one's. The
third GR had two amendments; the three options were ranked above FD,
and one of the amendments was chosen.
So, yes, a similar procedure could be done WRT any other GR decision
we have so far taken.
Well, except for de-electing a previous DPL whose term has already
finished, I guess ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
