Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > Our current processes work best, I believe, if proposals are written in > the open, so that if people disagree with the proposed texts, they can > start working on their amendment right away, which is much more > difficult to do under the time pressure of a GR procedure.
I'm helping hash out some ideas in private only because framing the problem and brainstorming possible solutions requires a ton of back and forth and trying to do that initial work on a public mailing list is exhausting and takes even longer. My intent is that anything we might come up with is made public for general discussion well in advance of being formally proposed for a GR, once it's in sufficiently coherent shape. (This is independent of any working group and started some time ago.) Personally, my interest is in fixing the process around the discussion period and the construction of the ballot. The constitution currently says some things that we've found cause unnecessary problems and weird corner cases, leaves some things unspecified in confusing ways, and did not anticipate the widespread use of ballot options and is therefore hopelessly confusing about roles. I think those can be cleared up in a way that will make all GR votes smoother and more comprehensible going forward. I had intended to work on this after the systemd vote and then didn't, which I feel bad about because we just had most of the same problems again. It's obviously something that's going to affect any even moderately controversial GR we have, including on technical topics. I'm also interested in a secret ballot for all GRs, but I think that's a separate discussion (and a separate GR) from dealing with the discussion period and ballot construction process. I personally have little interest in messing with the rules about how we do Condorcet, although of course other people might and I will read their proposals with interest. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
