On 11/12/2017 6:46 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
"Worst case scenario" I can think of:
1. The forum is discussing about a new ballot and the formal
discussion period starts at day X
2. A member introduces an "editorial change" _one day_ before day X.
3. The official discussion period for the new ballot begins,
including the text with the "editorial changes" at day X
4. Members have 7 days of official discussion to object to the
"editorial changes", in which case the ballot author and
endorsers will either remove these changes before the voting
period begins or let them be and risk the ballot failing.
This was my point. In order to facilitate the 'objection' phase, we
rapidly converge upon a hijacked voting process - in which we allow 7
days for review/objection, and/or then 7 days for voting.
It would probably be a "hijacked voting process" if the editorial change
was introduced one day before _the voting period_ begun. Then, there
wouldn't be enough time to raise objections for the editorial changes
and you would be forced to vote "no" for the entire ballot, just because
you don't agree with the editorial change.
The proposed language said that these editorial changes must be
introduced before the official _discussion period_. We have seen various
changes taking place during ballot discussion periods and for these
changes, the author and endorsers must be in sync. This means that if a
controversial change is introduced in a ballot during its discussion
phase and the success probability is low, the authors and endorsers will
decide if they want to remove the controversial language or not and the
best guess is that they will remove it to increase the probability for
success.
I agree that we don't need to make things more complicated then what
they are today. The proposal was aiming for the opposite. Simple
instructions and less bureaucracy. So, for better or worse, in case of
editorial changes, we will have the burden of separate ballots :)
Dimitris.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
