[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171211/cb87b27a/attachment-0002.html>