>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes:
Don> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com> writes:
Bdale> I hear you, I just don't have any idea what to do differently
Bdale> on this specific issue in response to knowing how you feel
Bdale> about it.
>>
>> I made a specific proposal in #741573. I'd be a lot happier if
>> you'd say "No, I think we've already reached agreement that the
>> policy team didn't have consensus., so we don't need to evaluate
>> whether the process was followed."
Don> I don't think we need to decide whether there was consensus or
Don> whether the process was followed. I'm also not sure whether
Don> deciding that issue would result in any actual difference in
Don> the outcome of this particular issue:
Don, my concern is that I don't have the information I need to make a
decision between option B and option C.
I have a deeper long-term concern if the TC as a whole doesn't value the
process question: I don't think I could be part of such a TC.
To recap, In order to figure out which wayp I would vote I'd want to:
* Evaluate whether the claimed seconds were legitimate. I can do that
on my own.
* Contact the people seconding and confirm that as part of seconding the
proposal they believed there was consensus.
* Provide a period (say a couple of weeks) in which Steve, Bill and
others either on the TC or on the policy team could raise technical
objections to Charles proposal.
I'll point out that we've been arguing for around two months about
whether to do something that takes two weeks of time. You have not
explained your reasoning, so I'm not able to evaluate whether the time
is afactor in your concerns. Those on the TC who have explained why
they think what I'm proposing is a bad idea seem to be saying that they
don't want to spend the additional time to do that work. I'm frustrated
when I think that we've spent far more time discussing whether it is
worth collecting this information than it would have taken to collect
that information.
To be clear, I don't see a huge difference in option A and B. I do see
a huge difference in voting on option A now vs stating a process we're
going to use that respects the policy team and following that process.
So, my preference would be to delay the vote and collect the information
in the bullet points above.
If you want a vote now and want an option on the ballot, how about:
D) The TC chooses to collect input from those seconding the proposal,
from the debian-policy list and from the TC.
If you want something that better explains what input we want to collect
from each party I'd be happy to draft that.
--Sam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
