On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > [ Removing tons and tons of personal Cc:s, I guess they all follow d-vote ] > > Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +0000]: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's > > proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has > > IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we > > can make a version which combines Guillem's framing with some > > appropriate specific guidance, perhaps taken from one of the other > > proposals.) > > > > Sam has decided to cut short this process. We started this public > > discussion less than a month ago. This is very short. > > (...) > > Ian, please don't. > > Well, you did. But I must say, I'm not the least thrilled at seeing > this initiative. > > While I share Sam's impression that the whole discussion has been > (impressively!) very civil and productive, I do not think further > delaying will be beneficial to the project. Yes, Guillem's proposal > arrived quite late in the process, presenting a very different and > important view. Yes, probably it could be improved. However, stating > the discusion started less than a month ago... Is quite far from the > observed fact that it started no less than five years ago.
No, that's not true. The issue has existed since five years ago. However, discussion on *this* GR has started only a month ago. A month is fairly short in Debian time to draft all the options on a ballot that is likely to be so contentions. That we've managed to get this far is amazing, but does not negate the fact that people are still working on their draft. If this option does not make progress in a few days, then yes, you're right. But I agree with Ian -- even if I'm unlikely to vote for that option -- that allowing it a fair chance to arrive onto the ballot is important. > We are trying to put closure to it. I think we can improve minutiae > forever, but will never reach a perfect solution that leaves everybody > happy. Perhaps, but the only way to do that is to allow every valid option to reach the ballot. I don't think that waiting a few more days is going to make the sky fall. There have been votes that took *far* longer than this one to be decided on. Historically, we've waited until discussion died before we called for vote. It feels wrong to not do the same now, on an issue that is likely to be this contentious. > That's the main reason to hold a GR. The available options > (Guillem's included) will most probably cover the opinions / feelings > of basically all developers. And if something is missing, as others > have stated, either a high rank for FD or a new GR following this one > can be the next possible action. So you're saying that instead of extending things for a few days now, you'd rather see the process started over again, which will take a *lot* longer than that? That seems... weird. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
