On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:17:22AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Thanks for re-raising this topic. I guess --- given the amount of
followups --- that this discussion is not particularly intriguing for
many of us, but it still an important one to have. We won't be able to
propose any change
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:08:45PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
during the last DPL voting period, a question [1] about the current
length of the DPL period came up. This topic was also discussed during
recent DebConf11.
So here's a wild idea I came up this morning while taking a
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:17:22AM +0200]:
(…)
The main question is: how would people feel about a DPL standing for
election for a 2 year period, provided that there is an easy way to
call for a mid-term election after 1 year? Easy should be defined in a
way that it is
Steve McIntyre dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:16:19PM +0100]:
Humm… An idea could be:
‣ The term is defined to be for one year, with the possibility of one
automatic renewal
‣ If by (election date + 10 months) the DPL sends a (signed,
validated, blah) message, a simple referendum is
[ M-F-T: debian-vote ]
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:08:45PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
during the last DPL voting period, a question [1] about the current
length of the DPL period came up. This topic was also discussed during
recent DebConf11.
While I do not want to come up with a
Hi,
Am Montag, den 29.08.2011, 10:17 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
At present, I don't have any bright idea on how to implement the not
socially awkward part preserving full transparency. A possibility might
be to allow a given number of DDs to request in private a mid-term
election to
Joachim Breitner wrote:
How about reversing the action: By default, there is an election, unless
a reasonable, well-defined number of DD publicly state that they see no
need for a re-election.
A variant on this that would not be susceptable to this:
I think this works well unless we have the
[Joey Hess]
... Would perhaps be to have people state that they are only
interested in a pro-forma election. If there's a consensus that the
current DPL is well respected and should continue, then we could skip
strawman candidates, DPL platforms, QA sessions, etc. (If NOTA wins,
the
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:33:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
... Would perhaps be to have people state that they are only interested
in a pro-forma election. If there's a consensus that the current DPL is
well respected and should continue, then we could skip strawman
candidates, DPL platforms,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:08:45PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
during the last DPL voting period, a question [1] about the current
length of the DPL period came up. This topic was also discussed during
recent DebConf11.
While I do not want to come up with a change of the constitution at
Hi,
during the last DPL voting period, a question [1] about the current
length of the DPL period came up. This topic was also discussed during
recent DebConf11.
While I do not want to come up with a change of the constitution at this
point, I would like to hear a broader opinion on that topic.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:08:45PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
And while i was looking on our constitution, i found it doesn't say any
given procedure if a DPL wants to step down. Kurt said to me during
DebConf11 that, if that happens, he will immediately start an election
process. Still
12 matches
Mail list logo
