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. cu Adrian
