Currently, the rules for changing anything about a proposal once a consent decision is started, are explained under “How to integrate objections”:
- Once there’s a good amendment: Edit the proposal and start a consent decision on the new proposal as described above.
In other words, if you change something, everyone needs to consent freshly. This includes objections for which the fix would be a very minor edit. By implication, it includes concerns (weaker reasons for change) for which the fix would be a minor edit.
We’ve broken this rule multiple times now:
- Team Agreements Proposal, where @alignwaivers added a review date
- Adopt S3 seven principles?, where I changed capitalization and spelled out an abbreviation
- Using canned-replied in decision making, where @wolftune did markup/editorial/content changes (however only after the consent decision was done, not during the running one)
So let’s change the rule Proposal:
At the bottom of the section “How to integrate objections”, add the following:
You can, however, if you judge that the change is minor and people would surely consent to it, simply edit the proposal. If you do so, also reply to the proposal to explain which change you did. In that reply, @mention the people who already consented to the proposal. For example, you could say “@a @b @c already consented, but I’m sure they’re OK with this.” (Minor changes may also be made in the absence of objections. They may also be made to the documentation of agreements that are already decided.)
=== Consent decision ===
Are there any objections / concerns to the above? (Let’s take 7 days for this.)