On 04.12.2023 06:02, Kelly Choi wrote: > In the specific example above, it's difficult in the sense that informal > voting wasn't officially in the governance yet when the feedback was > raised. What I would recommend in this instance is that if George and > others feel very strongly about removing that term and have given a proper > explanation, then I'd advise calling an informal vote within the thread and > following the decision. Alternatively if after this conversation, members > understand Andy's point of view and the term doesn't have serious > consequences - let's agree with what Andy inputted in the first place and > move this project ahead. In an ideal world, we wouldn't require voting, > but rather a discussion. However, if there are strong opinions for/against > a specific decision that is causing us to be at a standstill, this is where > informal voting helps.
I have some trouble with what the above expresses (and what was an issue already before): First, the subject of this thread says "informal", yet it invokes more what I'd call a formal vote. Then above you again say "calling an informal vote", which isn't my understanding from what an informal vote is. That's primarily based on my experience with the earlier informal vote that was taken on another subject: It was simply assumed that supplied tags had already cast a vote. Similarly here I'd expect that the opinions already expressed simply constitute the "informal" in the entire process. The difference merely is that in the other case a majority was in favor (which can be expressed by A-b tags), while here a majority is against (which cannot sensibly be expressed by tags, as a NAK would imo be pretty inappropriate). Jan
