"G" == G Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:
G> Aha! Thanks!
G> Did the heavens fall? ;-)
A little bit. I actually think we had a bit more trouble with the
voting system than we did with the DPL proposing options.
Among other things, there was friction with the DPL both being able to
propose options and (as a member) to be able to call for a vote. There
was friction between my desire to actually get things to a vote and
a desire for a late arriving option.
we've resolved that by updating the voting system.
I would encourage future DPLs to propose GRs.
My experience was that most of the people interested in developing
options were fairly invested in the topic at hand (init
systems/systemd.)
So you tended to draw out the most extreme options.
I did have an opinion on the issue, and by the time the vote concluded a
much stronger opinion than I had when I drafted the options.
but I was in a position to listen to a bunch of people and to try and
pull apart some options in the middle of the spectrum that apparently
appealed to the voters even if none of the people most invested in the
issue would have been motivated to propose those options.
The init system discussion was still very charged. But I think having
those options allowed us to move past that discussion in ways that the
previous discussions before the TC and previous attempts at a GR did
not.
All that previous work was very important in setting the stage and
letting us cogitate.
So, yes, that GR is one of those things I look back on with significant
pride. I would encourage future DPLs to consider that tool. But I think
a DPL needs to be careful to use that power to drive project decisions
and to make sure that a diverse set of points of view are represented on
the ballot.
In effect I tried to sponsor options that I thought were in the cloud of possibility around project consensus.
I withdrew one of my options because other people took it on with
slightly different wording and I did not see much difference in effect.
Another group wanted me to sponsor an option that was even more pro init diversity. I didn't because I thought that option was too far outside of
what the project was interested in: I thought we already had a
consensus against that direction. They got enough sponsors on their own,
and my reading of the vote suggests my guess that we had already decided against that direction was correct.
A couple of other people came forward with options. For example Ian had
a proposal that was a different compromise than the ones I approached.
I think all together we did a good job of having the options on the
table so that everyone felt there was at least one option on the ballot
that was a good fit for their position.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCaB1BBAAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dJ2oAP0UFeFq9lr7891j42DfD3XCopcVvFMG7H2ahEuW9R7JugEA6IEANP2MS19y 7vF9EQ5v2r1eoRjiyhxcqVlzkZXXTA8=
=HgEv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)