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.RemoveThis@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
any election. You can't inform yourself properly without it, and you
can't vote properly without informing yourself properly. Reducing this
period is the worst thing one could do.

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Wouter Verhelst <wouter.TakeThisOut@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@debian.org">MJ Ray</A> [mjr@debian.org]
</vamendmentproposer>
<vamendmentseconds>
<ul>
<li>
<A HREF="mailto:anibal@debian.org">Aníbal Monsalve Salazar</A> [anibal@debian.org]
</li>
<li>
<A HREF="mailto:sjr@debian.org">Simon Richter</A> [sjr@debian.org]
</li>
<li>
<A HREF="mailto:faw@debian.org">Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)</A> [faw@debian.org]
</li>
<li>
<A HREF="mailto:wjl@icecavern.net">Wesley J. Landaker</A> [wjl@icecavern.net]
</li>
<li>
<A HREF="mailto:gaudenz@debian.org">Gaudenz Steinlin</A> [gaudenz@debian.org]
</li>
</ul>
</vamendmentseconds>
<vamendmenttext>
<pre>

Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.

</pre>
<p>
Rationale:
Having a buffer zone of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or
cases where the nomination period must be extended. A buffer zone has
been included in DPL elections in recent years.

</p>
</vamendmenttext>

> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 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.
> [...]

I didn't see the above message before and I don't agree with the
assertions in it. Of course anyone campaigning in an unconventional
way will claim it wasn't intended as campaigning if challenged, else
they would lose votes. There's no arbiter(sp!) and no fear because
it's only a convention. So, using a convention instead of setting a
rule one way or the other favours insincere politicians.

Nevertheless, that amendment seems dead, so I guess we're stuck with a
convention for now.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct