The main response I saw to the requests for a slower process was from David
Roe, saying, "Finally, since we're just voting on trac vs github I don't
think there's a need to draw out the discussion until October 1, and
several people (William and Dima) have made arguments for making a decision
more quickly." I find this rather dismissive of the views of those who
requested a more deliberate process. It would be good to have a procedure
for determining timing for votes, something other than one person just
making a decision.
As a starting point:
1. Anyone can call for a vote, and the vote should last at least a week: it
is not reasonable to ask for votes more quickly than that, barring an
emergency that demands very fast action. We call for votes all the time,
e.g. recent decisions about formatting options for Sage documentation, and
there is no reason to make the overall procedure more complicated.
2. Anyone can then request a delay or an extension of the vote. The default
response should be to accept the delay/extension: "yes, the vote will now
end on ...". If people believe that the delay is unreasonable ("we need to
delay this vote by 25 years") or if they have other reasons to object, then
we can hold a one-week vote, no delays allowed, to decide whether to accept
the delay or not.
The second point is flawed: what to do if there are multiple requests to
delay? Maybe see if the people making the requests can come to a consensus
about the time. If not, then vote on the shortest proposed delay? The
longest one? The average? (We have a reasonably healthy community, but all
the same, I don't want to create a rule that can be abused: one person asks
for a ridiculous delay, then we hold a one-week vote that fails, then
another person, or even the same person, asks for another ridiculous delay,
etc.)
Alternatively, we have a steering committee that steps in to make
decisions, for example about the timing of votes, when there is
disagreement.
Other options?
--
John
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 3:11:12 AM UTC-7 Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> several developers asked for delays, to respect people with a busy
> schedule, to allow a constructive debate, to explore all possibilities,
> to move away from the noise and confusion related to a minor event
> [1,2,3,4,5,6].
>
> Democracy is not a race, i wish such a simple and reasonable request to
> be respected.
>
> Ciao,
> Thierry
>
> [1] John : "I don't see a reason to rush a vote"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/q5V9ov5FAAAJ
>
> [2] Jan : "I don't think the move is so urgent though"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/0Lk5pzdjBwAJ
>
> [3] Vincent : "For me the discussion in this thread is very premature"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/ZTXx_speBwAJ
>
> [4] Sébastien : "The urgency of short term issues does not imply the
> urgency of long term issues"
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/B19uBWUJCAAJ
>
> [5] Travis : "First off, we need to slow down significantly as we do not
> have an general clear consensus about doing this move."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/E3_sU2Y6CAAJ
>
> [6] Thierry : "one month break is a bare minimum."
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/ayOL8_bzOfk/m/STo_AT9qFgAJ
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/66bd89d6-7cbc-4262-9c22-66d8c238eb35n%40googlegroups.com.
