gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote

MJ Ray | 8 Aug 17:10

Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process


This is an amendment to aj's proposal shown at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/07/msg00178.html

==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week.

The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
    4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
       may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
       campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
       known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
       of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
       for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
       if necessary.
==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====

I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.

My rationale:

The campaign-only period is the most annoying bit of DPL elections,
but it escaped cuts in aj's proposal.  Why?  Let's cut it too!

We could shorten the election process even more by removing it, but it
looks useful for organising things to have some gap between
nominations and voting, yet I don't see why we should keep it at three
weeks instead of one.  If any candidate wants to campaign for longer,
they should nominate as early as possible.

(Continue reading)

David Moreno Garza | 8 Aug 17:37

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:12 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week.
> 
> The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
>     4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
>        may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
>        campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
>        known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
>        of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
>        for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
>        if necessary.
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> 
> I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.

I second this proposal.

--
David Moreno Garza <damog <at> espiral.org.mx> | http://www.damog.net/
 Te comes lo que dices.

David Moreno Garza | 8 Aug 20:49

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:37 -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:12 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> > Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week.
> > 
> > The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
> >     4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
> >        may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
> >        campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
> >        known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
> >        of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
> >        for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
> >        if necessary.
> > ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> > 
> > I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.
> 
> I second this proposal.

Signing my amendment proposal second, now.

--
David Moreno Garza <damog <at> espiral.org.mx> | http://www.damog.net/
 Él es el que te brinda la seguridad.

Pierre Habouzit | 8 Aug 18:45

X-Face

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:12:15PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> This is an amendment to aj's proposal shown at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/07/msg00178.html
> 
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week.
> 
> The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
>     4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
>        may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
>        campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
>        known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
>        of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
>        for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
>        if necessary.
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> 
> I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.
> 
> My rationale:
> 
> The campaign-only period is the most annoying bit of DPL elections,

  I strongly disagree with that, but that's a fair alternate proposal
that deserves to be on the ballot, hence I second it as well.

--

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder <at> debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

(Continue reading)

Simon Richter | 8 Aug 18:46

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Hello,

MJ Ray wrote:

> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week.
> 
> The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
>     4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
>        may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
>        campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
>        known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
>        of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
>        for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
>        if necessary.
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====

> I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.

Seconded.

> This is orthogonal to the amendment "Point 2 remains as before".

Which will probably mean that we will need options for this amendment in
combination with other amendments for voting. Does that need to be
spelled out, will that just magically happen or is that the most stupid
idea you have ever heard?

   Simon

(Continue reading)

John H. Robinson, IV | 8 Aug 19:03

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Simon Richter wrote:
> 
> Which will probably mean that we will need options for this amendment in
> combination with other amendments for voting. Does that need to be
> spelled out, will that just magically happen or is that the most stupid
> idea you have ever heard?

All we would need is someone to combine the two, get enough seconds, and
the combination of both ideas will appear on the ballot. So you would
get four options, nicely matching the boolean table of the two
``independent'' options.

--

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV          jaqque <at> debian.org
                                                                 http  ((((
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,         sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.          spiders.html  ((((

MJ Ray | 8 Aug 21:17

Sensible combinations, was: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

"John H. Robinson, IV" <jaqque <at> debian.org> wrote:
> All we would need is someone to combine the two, get enough seconds, and
> the combination of both ideas will appear on the ballot. So you would
> get four options, nicely matching the boolean table of the two
> ``independent'' options.

Yes, that's my understanding.  The "all the sensible combinations"
shortcut was deleted from Voting procedure on June 21st, 2003.

The vote was http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002
and I found some explanation in comments about A.3 the thread under
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/02/msg00017.html

I think this is a bug which encourages:
- voter fatigue, because the (N+1)th amendment introduces up to N
combinations, each of which needs the same number of good seconds;
- filibustering, to stop combinations getting enough support before
the call for vote;
- premature combination of unrelated options, to get them through
before either of the above kick in.

In turn, this all means that we are less
likely to find the best resolution, along the lines explained in
http://accuratedemocracy.com/l_intro.htm
Question: do you think votes since June 2003 have been unifying?

Any road up, it's here: will anyone propose a combined amendment?
I'm not sure whether I can or whether that would affect either of the
others.

(Continue reading)

Simon Richter | 9 Aug 10:39

Re: Sensible combinations, was: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Hi,

MJ Ray wrote:

> Yes, that's my understanding.  The "all the sensible combinations"
> shortcut was deleted from Voting procedure on June 21st, 2003.

Would it make sense to reintroduce that?

    Simon

Manoj Srivastava | 8 Aug 22:30

X-Face

Face

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> said: 

> This is an amendment to aj's proposal shown at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/07/msg00178.html

> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ==== Summary: reduce the campaign-only period
> to one week.

> The change to paragraph four is replaced by:
>     4. For [-three weeks-] {+one week+} after that no more candidates
>        may be nominated; candidates should use this time for
>        campaigning [-(to make their identities-] and [-positions
>        known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are no candidates at the end
>        of the nomination period then the nomination period is extended
>        for [-three further weeks,-] {+an additional week,+} repeatedly
>        if necessary.
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====

> I ask for comments and/or seconds, or aj to accept this amendment.

> My rationale:

> The campaign-only period is the most annoying bit of DPL elections,
> but it escaped cuts in aj's proposal.  Why?  Let's cut it too!

> We could shorten the election process even more by removing it, but it
> looks useful for organising things to have some gap between
> nominations and voting, yet I don't see why we should keep it at three
> weeks instead of one.  If any candidate wants to campaign for longer,
> they should nominate as early as possible.

(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 9 Aug 00:15

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> said: 
> > Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week. [...]
> 
>         This would probably mean that organizing the debate might have
>  to go; since the time period for identifying the candidates,
>  determining what time slots would work for them, the organizers, and
>  the audience would shrink, to the point that it is unlikely that there
>  would be any time for a post debate followup period to ask for
>  clarifications and all.

Would it?  The organisers and most time slot limitations could be
identified before nominations close and the possibilities announced.
The organisers were already being identified before nominations closed
this year, after all:-

Organisers sought 15 Feb 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00150.html
Nominations closed 25 Feb 2007 http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001

Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral panel
than now.  Candidates could be asked times as soon as they are
nominated, with a preference for an early debate.  The time this year
was decided about 5 days after nominations closed:-

Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html

While we're shortening the election, maybe the debate could be cut
down from three hours, if it would make it simpler to organise. That
would also reduce the amount of material generated for voters to read.

(Continue reading)

Don Armstrong | 9 Aug 03:47

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007, MJ Ray wrote:
> The organisers and most time slot limitations could be identified
> before nominations close and the possibilities announced. The
> organisers were already being identified before nominations closed
> this year, after all:-

The problem is really that figuring out a slot which will work for all
individuals concerned is non-trivial, and depends on finding out the
exact set of people involved.

> Organisers sought 15 Feb 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00150.html
> Nominations closed 25 Feb 2007 http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001
> 
> Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral
> panel than now. Candidates could be asked times as soon as they are
> nominated, with a preference for an early debate.

It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the
panel; so it should be as neutral as possible. [Whoever is the
moderator is always going to be biased, but I don't think there's any
way to get around that.]

> The time this year was decided about 5 days after nominations
> closed:-
> 
> Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html

Right; I imposed a time limitation on the responses from the
candidates to the debate schedule, and a rapid last call to the
scheduled time. I don't think that time can be cut down very much

(Continue reading)

Lars Wirzenius | 9 Aug 07:51

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On ke, 2007-08-08 at 18:47 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The main issue from where I sit is allowing enough time for nominees
> to post position statements and to have enough time for those position
> statements digested by the electorate, and enough initial discussion
> to occur so that interesting questions can be found for the debate. If
> candidates don't have these ready at the beginning of the campaign
> period, then the quality of the debate (and discussion) suffers.

I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about
various topics after the IRC debate. Given the spread we have to many
time zones, and the speed with which discussions progress (not to be
confused with the number of e-mails per second), a week for discussion
really does sound to me like too little time.

Hurried campaigning does not seasoned choices make.

--

-- 
Debian is a beast that speaks with many voices -- Richard Braakman

MJ Ray | 9 Aug 11:25

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral
> > panel than now. [...]
> It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the
> panel; so it should be as neutral as possible. [...]

I didn't mean to suggest that you discriminated.  Merely that
panellists self-selected after seeing some nominations this year.

> > The time this year was decided about 5 days after nominations
> > closed:-
> > 
> > Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html
>
> Right; I imposed a time limitation on the responses from the
> candidates to the debate schedule, and a rapid last call to the
> scheduled time. I don't think that time can be cut down very much [...]

OK.  Can you remember/extract what happened when between 24 Feb and 2
Mar?  Did you contact candidates when they nominated or after close of
nominations?

Lars Wirzenius <liw <at> liw.iki.fi> wrote:
> I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about
> various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion
> really does sound to me like too little time.

Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
the IRC debate but before voting closes.

(Continue reading)

Lars Wirzenius | 9 Aug 14:03

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On to, 2007-08-09 at 10:25 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw <at> liw.iki.fi> wrote:
> > I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion
> about
> > various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion
> > really does sound to me like too little time.
> 
> Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> the IRC debate but before voting closes.

Or possibly only two weeks, if aj's proposal to shorten it goes through,
as well. And that's still assuming our IRC debate happens right at the
beginning of the one week campaining period, when people still haven't
come up with good questions to candidates, or issues and themes to
discuss. To me, that is a bad way of dealing with an important
discussion.

Our voting period is long to deal with the fact that we are an
international organization of people with wildly varying demands on our
time. Otherwise, we could make the voting period be only one day, but
that would exclude people on vacation, work trips, ill, or otherwise
unable to attend to Debian things during that day. That would exclude
too many people, or require us to set up an absentee ballot system, and
a long voting period is so much simpler.

I think shortening the voting period to two weeks won't exclude very
many people. If it does, we should hopefully hear about them soon,
before we vote on aj's amendment, in which case I expect we'll be able
to vote for the shortening of the nomination period separately.

(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 11 Aug 21:15

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw <at> liw.iki.fi> wrote:
> > I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about
> > various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion
> > really does sound to me like too little time.
> 
> Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> the IRC debate but before voting closes.

No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies
campaigning during the voting period, which is against the spirit, if
not the letter, of the procedure.

--

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

MJ Ray | 12 Aug 14:27

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> > the IRC debate but before voting closes.
>
> No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies
> campaigning during the voting period, which is against the spirit, if
> not the letter, of the procedure.

When I've objected, I've been reminded that there is no rule against
campaigning during the whole election.  It is "only" a convention and
not one that's totally respected.  If you want to stop that, amend the
process to forbid it.  I'd second it.

My preferred option remains shortening the talking shop time.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Wouter Verhelst | 12 Aug 15:27

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> > > the IRC debate but before voting closes.
> >
> > No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies
> > campaigning during the voting period, which is against the spirit, if
> > not the letter, of the procedure.
> 
> When I've objected, I've been reminded that there is no rule against
> campaigning during the whole election.  It is "only" a convention and
> not one that's totally respected.  If you want to stop that, amend the
> process to forbid it.  I'd second it.

I didn't suggest to forbid campaigning outside the campaigning period.
There's no need; a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The
fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it
usually is. The only cases that I've seen where campaigning occurred
outside the campaigning period were either cases where something was
interpreted as campaigning while it wasn't intended as such, or a reply
to a question that was asked during the last few hours or minutes of the
campaigning period. Those are minor things, and they shouldn't be a
problem.

Reducing the campaigning period sounds like useless bureaucracy to me.

> My preferred option remains shortening the talking shop time.

The "talking shop time", as you call it, is the most important part of

(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 13 Sep 16:24

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
> > > > the IRC debate but before voting closes.
> > >
> > > No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies
> > > campaigning during the voting period, which is against the spirit, if
> > > not the letter, of the procedure.
> > 
> > When I've objected, I've been reminded that there is no rule against
> > campaigning during the whole election.  It is "only" a convention and
> > not one that's totally respected.  If you want to stop that, amend the
> > process to forbid it.  I'd second it.
> 
> I didn't suggest to forbid campaigning outside the campaigning period.
> There's no need; a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The
> fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it
> usually is. The only cases that I've seen where campaigning occurred
> outside the campaigning period were either cases where something was
> interpreted as campaigning while it wasn't intended as such, or a reply
> to a question that was asked during the last few hours or minutes of the
> campaigning period. Those are minor things, and they shouldn't be a
> problem.
[...]

It's been just over a month since I sent this mail, the last in the

(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 13 Sep 18:35

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> Can we have a vote?

Thanks for calling the vote.  AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm
new to this), I'm supposed to submit this summary:

  Point 2 stays the same, to allow three weeks buffer zone.

and this WML now:

<vamendments/>

<vamendmentproposer>
<A HREF="mailto:mjr <at> debian.org">MJ Ray</A> [mjr <at> debian.org]
</vamendmentproposer>
<vamendmentseconds>
		   <ul>
		   <li>
		   <A HREF="mailto:anibal <at> debian.org">Aníbal Monsalve Salazar</A> [anibal <at> debian.org]
		   </li>
		   <li>
		   <A HREF="mailto:sjr <at> debian.org">Simon Richter</A> [sjr <at> debian.org]
		   </li>
		   <li>
		   <A HREF="mailto:faw <at> debian.org">Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)</A> [faw <at> debian.org]
		   </li>
		   <li>
		   <A HREF="mailto:wjl <at> icecavern.net">Wesley J. Landaker</A> [wjl <at> icecavern.net]
		   </li>
		   <li>

(Continue reading)

Manoj Srivastava | 13 Sep 20:32

X-Face

Face

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:35:07 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> said: 

> Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
>> Can we have a vote?

> Thanks for calling the vote.  AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm
> new to this), I'm supposed to submit this summary:

>   Point 2 stays the same, to allow three weeks buffer zone.

        Folks, I am travelling, and thus am away from my gpg key and ssh
 keys, and shall not be able to set up the vote until after the 17th --
 and given that this is a long trip, it might take me a couple of days to
 set it up (I'll probably try to sleep all through the 18th, the way
 things are going).

        Since we have been in discussion for so long, would it be OK if
 we actually started voting on the weekend of the 23rd?  Since the next
 DPL elections are not until next year, this should have no practical
 impact on anything.  I apologize for the delay, but my bread-and-butter
 commitments have been overwhelming since debconf.

        manoj
--

-- 
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of. Blaise Pascal
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

MJ Ray | 13 Sep 20:48

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote: [...]
>         Since we have been in discussion for so long, would it be OK if
>  we actually started voting on the weekend of the 23rd?  [...]

Fine by me.  May your trip be enjoyable and less tiring than you expect.
--

-- 
MJR/slef

Wouter Verhelst | 14 Sep 15:02

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:32:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:35:07 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> said: 
> 
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> >> Can we have a vote?
> 
> > Thanks for calling the vote.  AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm
> > new to this), I'm supposed to submit this summary:
> 
> >   Point 2 stays the same, to allow three weeks buffer zone.
> 
>         Folks, I am travelling, and thus am away from my gpg key and ssh
>  keys, and shall not be able to set up the vote until after the 17th --
>  and given that this is a long trip, it might take me a couple of days to
>  set it up (I'll probably try to sleep all through the 18th, the way
>  things are going).
[...]

Sure, no problem. As you said, it isn't urgent; and my only concern was
to avoid this getting forgetten or something (a month after discussion
is unusually long if past experience is any indicator, so I was starting
to wonder)

As long as we vote at _some_ point before the next DPL election, I'm
happy.

--

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

(Continue reading)

Wouter Verhelst | 11 Aug 21:12

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 11:15:19PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> said: 
> > > Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week. [...]
> > 
> >         This would probably mean that organizing the debate might have
> >  to go; since the time period for identifying the candidates,
> >  determining what time slots would work for them, the organizers, and
> >  the audience would shrink, to the point that it is unlikely that there
> >  would be any time for a post debate followup period to ask for
> >  clarifications and all.
> 
> Would it?  The organisers and most time slot limitations could be
> identified before nominations close and the possibilities announced.
> The organisers were already being identified before nominations closed
> this year, after all:-

Yes, and even so, the debate was already pretty late during the campaign
this year because agreeing on a time slot seemed almost impossible.
Shortening the campaigning as you suggest will make organizing the
debate pretty much ruled out.

--

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Wouter Verhelst | 11 Aug 21:07

Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:12:15PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> The campaign-only period is the most annoying bit of DPL elections,

Actually, it's the most important bit in the DPL election. I see no need
to shorten it -- on the contrary.

--

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Return

Return to gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote.

Advertisement

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane