4 ms·
They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.
by tedunangst 6y ago
They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.
- cbmuser 6y agoNo, it simply shouldn’t have been public. The DPL elections aren’t public either.
- em-bee 6y agocorrect, but the debian rules on this issue state that only the elections are not public. there are no provisions for private votes on resolutions. this may change in the future if enough people find that (optionally) private votes on resolutions are a good idea.
- zozbot234 6y agoThe "Further discussion" option is meant to allow for that. Note that the options calling for a statement in support of RMS were even less preferred than "Further discussion", which is quite weird given the context so GP may well have a point.
- remram 6y agoWhy do you think it is quite weird? Historically, is the "further discussion" always at the bottom? edit: I found those, so it's not that weird, but not very common: Init systems https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 ; Delaying Lenny https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 ; Change to membership procedures https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002 https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002
- em-bee 6y agothe more controversial or sensitive a topic, the more likely it is that people will believe that more discussion is needed before a decision is reached, so i don't find that at all surprising.
- Pfhreak 6y agoNo, they should have used a standard process for general resolutions and not special cased it. Which is what they did. They have a constitution and a democratic process that requires proposals, seconding, a period of open discussion, and then a vote. They agreed on their voting system in advance exactly to handle cases where the vote might be contentious.