Hi Russ, Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. Sorry if it seems like I hijacked your thread.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:04 PM Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm reading this as another message of support for a tied vote in the TC > to result in an outcome of further discussion or to automatically set off > a GR. Let me know if I misunderstood. My point was broader. I envision nothing "automatic" but would leave it instead to the TC Chair, in a living process, to precipitate an outcome that survives public scrutiny and even outcry. I base that demand on public leadership on my own modest experience in city government (on a library commission, including as Chair). Your concerns about tactical voting may be better handled by observers—such as the press, or fearless advocates of transparency like Adrian—while the process unfolds. For the writer of a constitution, fear weakens the document's intuitive appeal, however imprecise the wording may seem. One cannot legislate thoughtful or honest conduct. Our best hope is to inspire it. > I think the constitution is the wrong foundational document to look to for > the "minds of the governed." The constitution is concerned primarily with > the procedural details. We have to spell them out somewhere so that we > have a shared basis to make hard decisions in a way that we've previously > agreed would be fair (even if we're on the losing side). Why focus solely on the defeat? Is the "hard decision" not in fact a win for the group? The constitution's projection of hardened confrontation entails a terrible reflexivity: A 3:1 supermajority leaves no gray area. There is no gentle nudge and no room for measurement. The maintainer was so wrong, fixing it required the second-worst measure in the Debian universe. (Expulsion being the most drastic.) No defeated maintainer will go to bed that night. thinking "well I lost, but it was a close call." I would like to give the system more wiggle room. Perhaps one day Joey Hess will tell me why he thought the constitution was "a toxic document" when he left. [1] [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html > The reason for the rework of the TC process in this proposal is precisely > because the TC's decision-making capabilities previously partially broke > down in ways that left a lot of damage behind, including accusations of > unfairness. This proposal would prevent the procedural circumstances that > happened previously from happening again, in a way that I hope is more > transparently fair and predictable than the current process. Procedural safeguards do not build consensus—the all-elusive project-wide goal the constitution so decidedly disavows. Maybe your changes will not reduce the accusations of unfairness that prompted them, and just silence them. In another example of reflexivity, strong rules are a sign of conflict. They are not needed—and rarely adopted—in peaceful and easy-going communities. > My experience in multiple heated debates in > Debian, and in similar problems in other governance debates and on-line > communities, is that having good, clear, and previously-agreed process is > exactly what creates the space for people to be gracious and collaborative > even when they strongly disagree with the opinions of others. Please do not read my response as second-guessing your experience. I am simply using this "space ... to be gracious and collaborative even" though I "strongly disagree with the opinions of others". > But I think the net long-term effect is to reduce the > temperature. How has it worked out so far? Thanks! Kind regards Felix Lechner
