>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
Kurt> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"): > > So yes, for me a
>> combination of options G and D would be (or maybe > > more
>> accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking >
>> > of the options given my ambivalence.
>> >
>> > To make it concrete I am going to post texts of those two
>> options. If > people come forward to say they support or or both
>> of them I will > formally propose them tomorrow morning (in the
>> hope that the Secretary > and/or the DPL will allow them on the
>> ballot). If you support either > of these options enough, then
>> please formally propose it yourself and > I will second it
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> Thank you for your work on this!
>>
>> I think I would support the G+D combination but given Kurt's
>> mails from this evening [0] it looks like this ship has sailed,
>> and I will now follow your example and spend the time before
>> going to bed with something more enjoyable than reading -vote and
>> thinking the options through.
Kurt> If there is a consensus that new options can still be added, I
Kurt> will consider adding them. As long as I don't sent out the
Kurt> call for votes, things can be changed. But it currently seems
Kurt> unlikely to me, so I'm proceeding in the normal process.
So, trimming a mail I was considering sending earlier.
First, I'd like to thank Kurt for his hard work in dealing with a
difficult election.
I'd also like to thank everyone for a reasonable and respectful
discussion about whether I did the right thing by making a CFV.
Jonathan> On 2019/12/04 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into
>> question the legitimacy of the process.
>>
>> I think you are wrong here. How can one know where to rank
>> option G when it's clearly incomplete. I don't know if I like it
>> or not. Let's finish the work on getting the ballot right and
>> then vote.
Jonathan> Absolutely, losing another day to get a proposal right is
Jonathan> a very small price to pay in the grand scheme of things,
Jonathan> where rushing it creates the risk of having to repeat it
Jonathan> all again in the future.
If that were the only consideration, I'd agree with you.
But in my mind, the quality of discussion and the respect for the
participants is a huge huge issue.
I got to a point where I and a number of others thought that the quality
of respect in the discussion--the consistency with our community
standards--had taken a marked turn for the worse.
No one has disputed that. Now, because I write this, someone may pop up
and say the discussion was fine for them.
But several of us did talk about how things were getting worse, and
prior to this message, people have not disputed that general conclusion.
In my mind, keeping Debian a reasonable place to be is a critical
priority. This should be unsurprising to anyone who followed the DPL
campaign.
I've been very transparent about my priorities in this area about as far
back as the systemd TC discussion.
People have complained about cutting off options, but no one has offered
to do the work of moving forward in a manner that maintains the
standards of our community.
No one has offered to stand in and do the work Russ, I and I think a
couple of others were doing Monday, writing public and private messages
to the list trying to facilitate a respectful discussion. No, Russ and
I didn't coordinate, but I think we independently came to the conclusion
that Debian would be better if we tried to remind people of the value of
respectful communication. I cannot speak for Russ or anyone else, but I
viewed that effort as both important and personally difficult.
Today's discussion has actually been reasonably respectful though.
That's great.
So, if there are people who are willing to step in and do the work to
conduct this discussion in a respectful manner, and if the secretary's
work is not unnecessarily slowed, then I would not object to ballot
additions.
I'm not withdrawing my CFV. I will push back strongly on discussion
that is not respectful. I believe it is far more important we start
voting this weekend than that we have additional revisions to the
ballot. But if a new option were to emerge through respectful
discussion, and the secretary were to be okay with it appearing on a
ballot that went to vote this weekend, I'd also be fine with that.
--Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature