Hi Sean,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:09:41PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am interested in this informal proposal from Russ, which has not
> received much explicit feedback:
>
> On Sun 07 Nov 2021 at 03:53PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you could make the system even simpler, producing a scheme
> > that has some admirable simplicity advantages over my proposal.
> > Something like this:
> >
> > 1. The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed and
> > sponsored. The length of the discussion period starts at 1 week.
> >
> > 2. An extension to the discusison period may be proposed and sponsored
> > according to the requirements for a new resolution. As soon as a
> > discussion period extension reaches the required number of sponsors, it
> > takes effect and cannot be withdrawn.
> >
> > 3. The first two times the discussion period is extended add an additional
> > week to the length of the discussion period. Subsequent extensions add
> > an additional 72 hours.
> >
> > 4. The proposer and sponsors of an extension to the discussion period may
> > not propose or sponsor any additional extensions to the discussion
> > period for the same General Resolution.
> >
> > 5. The discussion period may not be extended beyond six weeks.
> >
> > and then drop not only the language about extending the discussion period
> > when the ballot changes but also all the language for the DPL varying the
> > length of the discussion period, and use this system as the only mechanism
> > for changing the length of the discussion period.
>
> I have been studying Wouter's formal proposal and believe that the only
> substantive difference with the quoted text is that where the quoted
> text has a hard limit on the discussion period, Wouter's proposal
> instead has a mechanism for objecting to further extensions.
>
> Would someone else be able to confirm this reading, please?
Yes, that's pretty much correct; my current proposal was created after I
discarded Russ' informal proposal that you point to here as "not good
enough for me", and then I added the objection mechanism to cope with
that.
> If I'm right, I am considering proposing a third choice which is
> identical to Wouter's, except it would drop the mechanism for objecting
> to extensions beyond four weeks and reimpose a maximum discussion
> period, which I am thinking of setting to four weeks.
You may of course do so, but I think it creates a system that
incorporates the worst of both worlds. My proposed system allows one to
extend the time at all time (while making it progressively harder as
time goes on), because I believe it is better to have a system that
allows that flexibility when necessary than to have a system with a
rigid, unchangeable limit.
If you *do* prefer that limit, then I think it makes more sense to have
a system like Russ's, where time is extended when a ballot option is
added, but not past your time limit. His system is procedurally much
simpler than mine, but has the downside that it creates what I think is
an unacceptable hard limit. If you believe three weeks is too short,
might it not be better to propose a system like Russ's, but with the
hard limit at four weeks rather than three?
I don't really like the procedural complexity that my system creates,
but I think that disadvantage outweighs the disadvantage that the rigid
limit in Russ's proposal creates.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
