<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/12/2017 6:46 μμ, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvbohNn9AE1rM=f0RAHuZcaUdvwqSAQySykdo5GXBcyzMw@mail.gmail.com">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>"Worst case scenario" I can think of:</p>
<ol>
<li>The forum is discussing about a new ballot and the
formal discussion period starts at day X</li>
<li>A member introduces an "editorial change" <u>one day</u>
before day X.</li>
<li>The official discussion period for the new ballot
begins, including the text with the "editorial changes" at
day X</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It would probably be a "hijacked voting process" if the editorial
change was introduced one day before <u>the voting period</u>
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.<br>
<br>
The proposed language said that these editorial changes must be
introduced before the official <u>discussion period</u>. 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.<br>
<br>
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 :)<br>
<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>