Re: integrity of elections
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: And why do you think this should be allowed? Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a reasonable understanding of debian politics. That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who have been around longer than most of our developers. Some who have contributed more than some of our developers, too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: And why do you think this should be allowed? Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a reasonable understanding of debian politics. That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who have been around longer than most of our developers. Some who have contributed more than some of our developers, too. True, but we don't get a vote, either. And that's OK by me. Debian has, in general, been very, very good about letting anyone who has a valid point participate in the political and policy debates, regardless of status -- sometimes at fairly high levels, too. There was at least one non-voting user on the committee tasked to develop the new proposed voting method. Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: And why do you think this should be allowed? Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a reasonable understanding of debian politics. That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who have been around longer than most of our developers. Some who have contributed more than some of our developers, too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: And why do you think this should be allowed? Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a reasonable understanding of debian politics. That's true of some of our users too. There would be a few who have been around longer than most of our developers. Some who have contributed more than some of our developers, too. True, but we don't get a vote, either. And that's OK by me. Debian has, in general, been very, very good about letting anyone who has a valid point participate in the political and policy debates, regardless of status -- sometimes at fairly high levels, too. There was at least one non-voting user on the committee tasked to develop the new proposed voting method. Hamish
Re: integrity of elections
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining? Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I've been in the project achieving very much, and was not sufficiently convinced by any of the manifestos to actually want to vote for any of the candidates; equally, I expect any of them would do a passable job, so I don't want to vote RON either. Matthew -- Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire http://www.pick.ucam.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +, Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining? Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default option at 5 (v5). Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I've been in the project achieving very much, and was not sufficiently convinced by any of the manifestos to actually want to vote for any of the candidates; equally, I expect any of them would do a passable job, so I don't want to vote RON either. Voting all candidates equally expresses no preference between them -- but rating them over the default option indicates you think they are all capable. You ballot would indicate you were rpesent, and express your true choces in the election. manoj -- Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:35:02AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. I disagree. Isn't it better to solve the problem of long wait times than to give people priviledges early? Priviledges that potentially they may not otherwise get (ie if they are rejected). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining? Personally, I've yet to notice any of the DPLs whilst I've been in the project achieving very much, and was not sufficiently convinced by any of the manifestos to actually want to vote for any of the candidates; equally, I expect any of them would do a passable job, so I don't want to vote RON either. Matthew -- Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire http://www.pick.ucam.org
Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:35:02AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. I disagree. Isn't it better to solve the problem of long wait times than to give people priviledges early? Priviledges that potentially they may not otherwise get (ie if they are rejected). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:11:23 +, Matthew Vernon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In which case, there should be a procedure for abstaining? Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default option at 5 (v5). would not 2 be enough (v2) ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: integrity of elections
Glenn McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. And why do you think this should be allowed? I think we should investigate why they are so long in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not a good idea IMHO, as someone else already said, they could actually face an rejection, and in that case they should obviously not be allowed to vote. -- CYa, Mario | Debian Developer URL:http://debian.org/ | Get my public key via finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
Re: integrity of elections
Hi, On Tuesday 25 March 2003 13:02, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:37:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Simple. Just vote all candidates at 1 -- and put the default option at 5 (v5). would not 2 be enough (v2) ? That makes no difference whatsoever. -- Matthias Urlichs pgpTsHce993LT.pgp Description: signature
Re: integrity of elections
And why do you think this should be allowed? Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a reasonable understanding of debian politics. I think we should investigate why they are so long in the queue, but giving them voting rights per se is not a good idea IMHO, as someone else already said, they could actually face an rejection, and in that case they should obviously not be allowed to vote. Im not suggesting its ok that people remain in the queue for 6 months, fixing NM is a different problem. If they havent been rejected in 6 months then they must be a borderline case, if we give them some more rights then it could help the DAM to make a decision. But as it requires a vote its a mute point. According to http://www.debian.org/vote/ the last non-election vote that completed was in June 1999, almost 4 years ago. And there has only ever been 4 items voted on, 1 on the constitution, and 3 about the logo. When is the new voting scheme going to adopted ? Glenn
Re: integrity of elections
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: integrity of elections
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if I did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues. The polls are not yet closed. More generally, most Debian decisions have been made by an activist elite. So far, that's seemed to work fairly well -- perhaps because of our charter, we've been able to trust that people interested in an issue will make well informed decisions about that issue. I think you are making my original point. Or: I don't see the non-involvement of myself (or others) as a sign of ill health for the organization. It's the way things have always been -- we're a group of volunteer specialists, not political activists. My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. Additionally, identifying inactive developers would help in deciding which packages need attention; un maintained packages do hurt the project. This is not the place to discuss the rest of my position as evidenced in the log; we can shift to -project for that. manoj -- The bonds that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each others life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof. Richard Bach Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: integrity of elections
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:41 -0600 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original point was that people who do not actually exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set -- and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes. I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. Glenn
Re: integrity of elections
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:35:02 +1100, Glenn McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I would like to see NM'ers who have been in the queue for more than 6 months be able to vote. You realize that needs a GR, and one with a super majority requirement, to change the constitution. manoj -- Most people have a mind that's open by appointment only. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
