On Wed, 06 Nov 2013, Ian Jackson wrote: > So we should hold a public vote. > > On the other hand I see no reason to list on the ballot candidates > that no existing TC member feels we should be voting on. Doing so > makes the slight to those candidates more formal and obvious.
If the way each member voted were obscured, I wouldn't have a problem with a public vote. However, since actually obscuring votes is difficult when there are so few voters, I'm not sure how that would be handled. Instead, I think that publicly announcing that we are deciding on a recommendation to the DPL via voting on the debian-ctte-private alias would be enough. [That way, all of the CTTE members know how eachother voted, and can independently verify the vote. Secondly, any external individual who wanted to verify the vote could ask the DPL or the DPLs delegate to do so by reading through debian-ctte-private.] > So I suggest the following process: > > 1. Someone sends a proposal to start off the public ctte nominations > period. (Formally, they are proposing a TC resolution.) For a period > of two weeks we will take public nominations from TC members of any > candidates they think should be on the ballot. We already had a public nomination period, and the candidates we have discussed all came from that public nomination. I don't believe a second nomination period with additional delay associated required to vet the nominees and discuss them is necessary. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com There is no such thing as "social gambling." Either you are there to cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you don't like this choice--don't gamble. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
