Hi pinoaffe,
pinoaffe <[email protected]> writes:
This might be a shortcoming in the GCD process (heck, maybe
"near-consensus" might be good enough), but if so, that should
be
addressed by a GCD updating GCD 001, rather than arbitrarily
dismissing
Gabriel's disapproval.
I think it’s very obvious that the GCD process is not working as
well
as we hoped. Multiple GCDs this year have gone exceedingly
poorly,
and there are some commonalities between the ways they have.
I had doubts about the one-veto rule when GCD001 passed, and I
think
it’s clear now that it’s too high a bar. Consensus does not mean
unanimity[1][2][3], it means "general agreement" or "widespread
agreement." To the credit of everyone involved in the
discussions, I
think we readily cleared that bar. We didn’t fail the process,
the
process failed us; thus, the process should change. And while I
think
gabber’s process objections are inapt justification to disapprove
GCD008, many points are real issues that must be grappled with for
the
GCD process to succeed at all.
I would support:
- Changing the voting mechanism to accept a GCD if it gets a
supermajority of a simple yea/nea vote.
- Finding ways to better organize the discussion period.
- Potentially, using a secret ballot.
-- Ian
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
[2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus#English
[3]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
