Bdale Garbee <[email protected]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
>> So, I think it's safe to say that this process has, so far, not worked. >> Only two candidates have been put forward, one by Ian and one by >> myself. > Why do you equate this to not working? > The candidate I intend to rank first is on the ballot, so I really don't > care if other candidates are on the ballot or not. The process seems to > be working fine? Well, Ian's point was that we should have a public vote, and Steve pointed out that Condorcet often chooses compromise candiates and benefits from a larger pool from that purpose. I don't have any inherent objections to a private process -- I think this decision would benefit from secret ballot, actually, although it's pretty hard to do that with a small voting pool -- but it does seem contrary to the intent of the constitutional process as I understand it. > I'll accept that assertion at face value, but personally, I'm completely > happy to proceed with a short candidate list on the public ballot. Well, similarly, my top choice is on the ballot, so I guess you could also see this as a reflection of a private consensus process. Maybe I should say instead that it seems surprising? If we actually do have a consensus, then that's great. I just want to make sure that's how we're constructing the ballot, since there was some discussion saying that we should nominate everyone we would vote above further discussion. If *that's* the process we should be using, I should nominate a bunch more people. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
