Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes: > Generally speaking, while I am in favor of making the decision-making > process fairer and less subject to interpretation, I am not in favor of > making it faster. Three weeks is already a very short time in Debian > term. A fast decision making process could quickly lead to the > implosion of Debian. It takes time to understand what will be the > actual effect of a proposed resolution.
Thank you! That helps me understand your position. I'm sorry to focus so much on my specific proposal, but since it's what I'm trying to put into a shape such that everyone is comfortable with it, I kind of have to. Do you believe my proposal makes decision-making faster, and thus is objectionable under that criteria? I believe that it doesn't, but perhaps I'm missing something. The current rule is two weeks plus or minus a week via the DPL, after which any developer -- the text doesn't say that but that's the result of the current wording -- can call for a vote provided that the original GR proposer doesn't accept amendments. My proposal also says two weeks plus or minus a week via the DPL, but if there are additional ballot options the time automatically extends to three weeks. I therefore think it roughly maintains the current timing, and to the extent that it changes it, it generally lengthens the discussion period by up to a week, although it's possible to get a longer discussion period out of the current system if the original GR proposer accepts a lot of amendments. In other words, is the current proposal something that you would support provided that the discussion period isn't made any shorter? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
