Ian Jackson <[email protected]> writes: > But, having said that, if there are candidates that Russ thinks ought to > be on the ballot then all that has to happen is for him to propose them. > But personally I think it would be better not to vote on candidates that > (based on the private discussion) we don't think stand a serious chance > of winning.
I would vote many other candidates above further discussion. However, based on the previous discussion, I believe one of the two people currently on the ballot are most likely to win, so from that perspective adding more people seems unlikely to change the outcome. > I think that the consensus is indeed that we should have one of the two > people currently on the ballot. There is disagreement or uncertainty > about which. Okay, that makes sense. > There is no agreement about what the criteria are for being on the > ballot. The Constitution sets the process, and it is clear from it that > TC members are free to nominate anyone they feel like. > My personal view is that I would definitely want to vote on my own first > choice. > If I felt there was a significant chance of the vote going to someone I > felt unsuitable I would want to nominate all the suitable candidates > with a chance of winning. But that doesn't seem to be the case. That also makes sense. I think I was just confused as to what process we were using. > I would normally rather avoid voting on a candidate that any TC member > had said they would rank below FD (assuming that the TC member who said > this had what appeared to me to be cogent reasons). Certainly, I would > not nominate such a candidate unless I felt they had a good chance of > winning. The reason being that it is not worth forcing other TC members > to decide between snubbing the candidate and misrepresenting their > views, unless we really have to to get the right answer. I do think this is unfortunate, although that doesn't mean I think you're wrong. Were I a candidate, I would be happy to be voted on, even if that meant being voted below further discussion, because that would be useful feedback to me. However, I would probably want to ask the people who voted that way why they voted that way, and I recognize that may be an uncomfortable line of discussion. I think it's an uncomfortable line of discussion that I'd benefit from, and I'd try to treat it as constructive feedback. That said, I realize that the possible personal tensions here are awkward, which is part of why the DPL vote is anonymous. I don't have any good solutions. I don't really have any cogent reasons not to go down the path that we're on, now that I understand it. It feels to me like open voting on everyone nominated would be more ideal for openness and for public feedback, but also riskier, and possibly uncomfortable. -- 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]
