Bill Allombert <[email protected]> writes: > I do believe reducing the discussion period gives too much head start to > the proposing parties, by contrast to others developers that may not > have allocate time to participate in such discussion at this point of > the time. This is a matter of fairness.
I completely agree that there is a concern of fairness here (and think it is exacerbated by the current rules for how to call for a vote). What do you think of the approach in my current proposal? The intent there is to make the minimum period long enough (and also provide a way to extend it by at least a week by proposing a placeholder ballot option if need be) to try to remedy this. I do think that at some point we have to rely on the escape hatch of campaigning for a "none of the above" vote when the process seems too rushed, since extending the discussion period indefinitely opens the opposite problem of a party being able to delay action that the project wants to take. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
