Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty > about the DPL's powers.
There is no uncertainty about the period of DPL powers. The power transfer date has been clearly stated in recent years, hasn't it? > During elections, it's hard for an incumbent DPL to use his powers, for > fear of stuff like > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00162.html happening. Posting to d-d-a is power of ~all DDs. In fact, that's not the DPL I'm complaining about. It would not have hurt for the 2IC to delay that announcement, or at least part of it, for a week. That's just one example of campaigning happening outside the campaign-only period, which is the motivation for the other amendment I proposed. [...] > Right after the election (or vote, if you please), if the DPL-elect is > not the incumbent DPL and was elected on a platform that is sufficiently > different from the incumbent DPL's platform and/or conduct as DPL, then > having the incumbent DPL stay in office for too long is questionable. > > The election period does not end when the vote ends, and so your > amendment defeats the whole purpose of aj's proposal. The DPL-elect has not taken office when the vote ends for years now, and that hasn't been a problem, has it? It would take a really petty DPL to use their powers to sabotage the DPL-elect in the way being suggested. Indeed, such acts are probably against the DPL procedures. If we ever elect a really petty DPL, we've far bigger problems than the handover weeks! This amendment merely normalises the handover. Please support it. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
