Re: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals (was Re: Issues 89 through 97)

On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

>> This approach is originally Sam's idea, and I am pleased with the way it's been working out. I don't think Sam is saying we're going to change things. But he *is* saying that the counter-proposal period is not guaranteed, and if a Change Proposal is either a clear winner or a clear loser just from mailing list discussion, we may not bother formally calling for alternatives.
> That's not a step in the Decision process. The decision process states
> that if the change proposal has general acclaim, it will most likely
> be passed by consensus. If the change proposal has little or no
> support, regardless of how it is written, it probably won't even go to
> the poll.

The Decision Policy also includes a discussion period with no specific bound. A few times now,  we've chosen to request that some of that discussion be distilled into additional Change Proposals. That's been our best judgment of how to bring discussion to a resolution when there is no clear consensus winner. That's seemed more prudent to us than just going to a poll - we prefer for that to be the last resort. Other than that, I agree with what you said. If a Change Proposal is a clear winner or clear loser, it can succeed or fail without the need for any further Change Proposals.

> There is nothing in this that states, "We will put out a call for
> counter-proposals when a change proposal is submitted". Not only that
> but, "We will put out MULTIPLE calls for counter-proposals, telling
> people the counter-proposal has to be finished in a month".

I can't recall an instance where we've put out multiple calls for counter-proposals.

> Speaking of chairs, Sam when you said "both" chairs, does this mean
> Paul has quit?

I think Sam just misspoke.


Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:50:14 UTC