Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 12:50:25+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58) > > Adrian Bunk 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. History tends to show as far as we are concerned that the longer the discussion, the more look-alike options come and the less the ballots are easy to digest and fill in. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Quoting Bernd Zeimetz (2021-04-20 15:26:06) > On 2021-04-20 12:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > 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. > > On th other hand this leads to even more discussion, more flame-wars > and maybe some other ballots that come in in a short time before the > voting peropd starts - which might have the same issues you've just > described. But without a defined time on when a vote starts, the > discussion will never end. > > No idea on how to fix that, though. Personally I think having fixed > and known dates is still the best option. I think a sensible step in the direction towards fixing the issue you describe is to not assume that "more discussion" necessarily leads to "the discussion will never end". ;-) For my own part, by "more time preparing" I did only imply "the ordinary 2 weeks", not "all the time in the World". - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
On 2021-04-20 12:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: 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. On th other hand this leads to even more discussion, more flame-wars and maybe some other ballots that come in in a short time before the voting peropd starts - which might have the same issues you've just described. But without a defined time on when a vote starts, the discussion will never end. No idea on how to fix that, though. Personally I think having fixed and known dates is still the best option. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58) > Adrian Bunk 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 signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Adrian Bunk 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? There were certainly people objecting to things, but it seems to me that their views were correctly reflected in the vote results, in which case I'm wondering what would have been added by discussing it further. It's possible that there were people who were on holiday or some such, and thus missed the whole thing, but on the other hand it's also pretty clear that some people were at the end of their endurance ... perhaps they would have been driven to ignore the continuing discussion if it had gone on longer, and thus been disenfranchised. I don't think that one can automatically assume that more discussion is better. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
