Second Call for votes for Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi,
We are now in the second and final week of this vote. At the
time of writing, 132 people have voted, out of a potential 1049. This
is somewhat of an record for low participation.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,23rd Sep 2007
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 06th Oct 2007
The following ballot is for voting on a Constitutional amendment:
reduce the length of DPL election process. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A,
Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_004
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the GR. The proposal is to change section
5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment of the Project Leader
to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the voting period to
two weeks. URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/07/msg00178.html
In wdiff format:
===
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
===
There has been one amendment proposed, which is identical to the
original proposal, except that it does not change section 5.2.2, and
thus creates a three week buffer between the end of the election and
the start of the new project leaders term.
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/08/msg00087.html
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. nd so on Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 3. You may skip numbers. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3).
To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further
discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
discussion choice by the voting software).
Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry
about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your
reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed)
with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may optionally encrypt
your ballot using the public key included below. Also, note that you can
get a fresh ballot any time by sending a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the subject gr_election
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
acf05695-2c74-4751-a58a-ab7eb8282300
[ ] Choice 1: Reduce the length of DPL election process
[ ] Choice 2: As above, but do not change election start date
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi,
This is a draft ballot. The voting has not started yet. If this
ballot has flaws, speak now, or forever hold thy peace.
manoj
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,23rd Sep 2007
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 06th Oct 2007
The following ballot is for voting on a Constitutional amendment:
reduce the length of DPL election process. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A,
Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_004
You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the GR. The proposal is to change section
5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment of the Project Leader
to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the voting period to
two weeks. In wdiff format:
===
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
===
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2).
To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further
discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
discussion choice by the voting software).
Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry
about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your
reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed)
with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may optionally encrypt
your ballot using the public key included below. Also, note that you can
get a fresh ballot any time by sending a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the subject gr_dm
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
acf05695-2c74-4751-a58a-ab7eb8282300
[ ] Choice 1: Reduce the length of DPL election process
[ ] Choice 2: Further discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by Devotee (DEbian VOTe
EnginE) using the vote key created for this vote. The public key
for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below.
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
mQGiBEb0n2ERBAD861UWYoMSoOcPyyc0Vp+MLIPPWXTKSvP3rWqs8suKywuMcZI5
Vl5JBm7D+vPkdKopoEPZVPLFx1k8keu3XQbWp6y+08aSrU5EYE5nrWPRgdRge7G6
lSdyWSAWbuQQLbplNhGczsonUBdvTsgS1SS0Dwhv7KtOX9bbfTjyUTSpHwCg5zVu
Oa0XYTXQdY3QvuwrOlHSZTsD/RWvWG8gdy+gvllPPjW4xKFxIGKjxx7dOfuizLDN
z/XDb/045Rv66b6EHXu1byU4d0presKx
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
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]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty
about the DPL's powers.
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.
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.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty about the DPL's powers. There's really no uncertainty about them, though. The outgoing DPL is still in power until the post becomes vacant at the end of the term. 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. Reactions to doing your job during the entirely of your term are just going to happen, some well thought out, some merely gut responses. [That particular message isn't such a good example though, because it's a reaction to something which was done which isn't a power of the DPL by someone who was not the DPL.] 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. I'm of the opinion that three weeks to bring all currently open projects to a position where they can be smoothly transfered to the DPL-elect is desirable. The election period does not end when the vote ends, and so your amendment defeats the whole purpose of aj's proposal. The election period does end, though. Only a transition period is added in which can be used as a buffer zone in case the nomination period and/or voting period needs to be extended. Don Armstrong -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
AT == Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AT Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or AT less in the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an AT extra week for DPL elections seems unnecessary. DPL elections is the most complicated voting with many options (candidates) and many documents to study (platforms, rebuttals + discussion). Perhaps I'm not the only one who would prefer to retain the extra week to get better opportunity to participate in DPL voting? Regards, Milan Zamazal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
and I ask for seconds.
Regards,
- --
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGtv1tmUY5euFC5vQRAhiYAJ4+xFCBeWWsx3/a4vYgawPczh8R2QCgjPUs
IdfLHM6ubbxd9NHnmGmyv4A=
=Jv11
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Seconded. Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Seconded. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06-08-2007 07:52, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Seconded. Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGt14SCjAO0JDlykYRAmLxAKC4MCszIaB/VPLcPbMwONEocSdmegCeNG+6 O0ChhAZDluo14aY5vTT0W9k= =eIPI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Monday 06 August 2007 04:52:58 MJ Ray wrote: I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose: AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL and I ask for seconds. Seconded. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
and I ask for seconds.
seconded.
Regards,
- --
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGtv1tmUY5euFC5vQRAhiYAJ4+xFCBeWWsx3/a4vYgawPczh8R2QCgjPUs
IdfLHM6ubbxd9NHnmGmyv4A=
=Jv11
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
pgpKF04nYTw5S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally clear. [...] It's as clear as it is now: DPL (not DPL-elect). The end of the polling period is not necessarily the election date. Notice polling closed before the DPL's election for a few years now: http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_002 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_001 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_001 This is not something new in the amendment I proposed. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
From AJ's original mail:
...
Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in
the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an extra week for
DPL elections seems unnecessary.
Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems
like a win to me. YMMV.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose: From AJ's original mail: ... Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an extra week for DPL elections seems unnecessary. I see that as a reason to reduce the voting period, not the election. Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like a win to me. YMMV. Such arbitrary calculations aren't reasons. One can just as well note that the DPL election period is only approximately 0% of the period where the DPL's decisions can have effects. 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]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Le samedi 04 août 2007 à 12:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : That's because you only take into account controversial GR. Not all GR need to be controversial. Sometimes I'm tempted to use GRs to try have some official position statements from Debian on some topics. And this is what GRs are meant to be. Using a GR as a decision process, like what happened several times recently, is utterly wrong and each such vote that is taken weakens the project a little more. Each of them brings more resentment and disagreement instead of making people work together like you'd like them so much to do. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. Since this mail, I've asked Martin Michlmayr, Wichert Akkerman, Bdale Garbee and Branden Robinson about their opinion regarding this post; and we've also seen replies from Sam Hocevar and Anthony Towns. Some have replied on-list, others only through IRC. The most supportive response was Bdale's, who said he had mixed feelings about it; everyone else thought it was a bad idea. In that light, I do not think it would be very smart to force this issue, so I'm not going to make it a formal amendment. Regards, -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since this mail, I've asked Martin Michlmayr, Wichert Akkerman, Bdale Garbee and Branden Robinson about their opinion regarding this post; and we've also seen replies from Sam Hocevar and Anthony Towns. Some have replied on-list, others only through IRC. The most supportive response was Bdale's, who said he had mixed feelings about it; everyone else thought it was a bad idea. In that light, I do not think it would be very smart to force this issue, so I'm not going to make it a formal amendment. Thank you for doing the research for this, Wouter. I've been wondering for a while whether this would be a good idea, and it's very good to get concrete information. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Seriously, could we have this change without voting? Indeed. Reducing our GR rate seems more important than changing the DPL election process. I don't agree. I think quite the contrary. We often tend to not address issues and let them consume our energy in endless discussions. I believe that having GR is useful to re-forge ourselves a clearer identity. Of course, this administrative GR doesn't count as something that helps us forge an identity. :) Minor GRs cause reduced interest from the electorate, resulting in less scrutiny. Dare I suggest that the end result is that editorial changes get passed? I remember. And I think most people remember and will think twice before voting. :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Seriously, could we have this change without voting? Indeed. Reducing our GR rate seems more important than changing the DPL election process. I don't agree. I think quite the contrary. We often tend to not address issues and let them consume our energy in endless discussions. I believe that having GR is useful to re-forge ourselves a clearer identity. A GR is the poorest way to agree on anything. I think I'm not so surprised to see you claim that, even after some not so old history. GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one the losers and the winners. And the identity you claim to forge, is just the identity of the winning camp, not Debian's. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpvmFVawzkpg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070804 11:54]: GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one the losers and the winners. And the identity you claim to forge, is just the identity of the winning camp, not Debian's. Of course, with exceptions like formal GRs, e.g. in cases where we want an GR to make it obvious the project wants something (which is e.g. required for constitutional changes even if we all seem to agree, for good reasons IMHO). I think this is the case with reducing the length of DPL election process. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I don't agree. I think quite the contrary. We often tend to not address issues and let them consume our energy in endless discussions. I believe that having GR is useful to re-forge ourselves a clearer identity. A GR is the poorest way to agree on anything. I think I'm not so surprised to see you claim that, even after some not so old history. GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one the losers and the winners. And the identity you claim to forge, is just the identity of the winning camp, not Debian's. That's because you only take into account controversial GR. Not all GR need to be controversial. Sometimes I'm tempted to use GRs to try have some official position statements from Debian on some topics. And at least, they give us some real figures of Debian instead of unverifiable statements quoting the 'the silent majority' (which probably exists in most cases, but whose opinion is difficult to know). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On su, 2007-08-05 at 01:07 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:54:15AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: GRs do not unite, they divide. They divide the DDs in two: the one the losers and the winners. Just because your argument doesn't win the day doesn't mean you're a loser, or divided off from the rest of the project. FULL AGREEMENT STOP GRACEFULLY ACCEPTING LOSS VITAL STOP COME TO BLANDINGS NEXT WEEKEND STOP ANATOLE IN TOP FORM STOP -- Debian is a beast that speaks with many voices -- Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Joey Hess wrote: Wouter Verhelst wrote: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. I'd probably second that, but I'd really appreciate hearing from past and present DPLs, as well as DPL candidates, to decide how to vote on it. I've been thinking a bit on that as well. While I'm all for some continuity and to give some more time, it would be more difficult for me to decide to stand if the goal is to stay in the position for two years. IMHO it would only make sense if we switched to a team-based DPL position because the requirement are then lowered for each individual. That said nothing is preventing people like me to propose a team while others who are more confident on their long-term availability/energy can stand alone. In the end, while 2 years is really long, 18 months might be ok. Furthermore it gives a reasonable chance to each DPL to have a release within their terms. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi, On Friday 03 August 2007 08:48, Andreas Barth wrote: Seriously, could we have this change without voting? No. And that's a good thing. Agreed (to the second, the first is just a fact). Agreed. And I felt a bit silly yesterday, when I re-thought about my question - even looking at the subject would have been enough to answer my question ;-) regards, Holger pgpvs3uCh178a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Cheers,
Aurelien
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 10:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning
appointment of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period
to a week, and the voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the
leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already)
immediately. 3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+}
any Developer may nominate themselves as a candidate Project
[-Leader.-] {+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there are
no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period
during which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished. 6.
The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in
section A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the
same as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is
None Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
pgps9HRFbXTEs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 09:49]: I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. I've felt the same thing for a while as well. I don't think it's a good idea to increase the time of a DPL term. As Lars says, it's much harder to make a two-year commitment and from personal experience I can tell you that being DPL takes a lot of energy and time. I think a year is good and if the person wants to do it again they can simply stand for re-election. One year isn't much time to get anything done; it's barely enough time to build up the rapport required to start getting things done. You really need to build up rapport and have good contacts before running for DPL. Also, I think we've seen with a number of DPLs (if not most) that they were more active at the beginning of their term, so making it even longer wouldn't help. I also don't really buy the argument that a year isn't enough to get things done. And there's always the chance of getting re-elected if someone did a good job. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 23:04]: Note that you're still free to step down after one year, so that's hardly a problem I don't think anyone would do that. It takes quite a bit to convince yourself to step down and then actually go through with it. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: Seconded. Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to vote any more :-) That said, once we reached the 5 DD who seconded (+2/3 more just to be sure in case of bad signatures), it doesn't bring much to send further seconds IMO. It's a rare display of unanumous agreement amongst DD's, surely that has value in end of itself :-O (though sadly I have to admit that the usual flamewars make for more interesting reading :) -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to vote any more :-) Seriously, could we have this change without voting? I was wondering the same... Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Thursday 02 August 2007 14:26, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to vote any more :-) Seriously, could we have this change without voting? No. And that's a good thing. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. And that's a good thing. Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting procedure as blatantly obvious. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. And that's a good thing. Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting procedure as blatantly obvious. I think even if only each and every developer/2 + 1 would second this, we could be fine without a vote, couldn't we? Besides the fact this is never going to happen, I agree with Wouter and think it's generally a bad idea. Cheers, Bastian -- Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de Debian Developer venthur at debian org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:25:33PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote: On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. And that's a good thing. Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting procedure as blatantly obvious. I think even if only each and every developer/2 + 1 would second this, we could be fine without a vote, couldn't we? No. I second this means I want to see this come to a vote, not necessarily I think this is a good idea. Consider that Anthony Towns formally seconded http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_005, his own recall vote. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] (02/08/2007): Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting procedure as blatantly obvious. ``Seconding a GR'' = ``Voting in favour of a GR''? I don't think so. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgph0rm5SbdZa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Joerg Jaspert [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:41:44 +0200]: Ok, they may hurt the secretary, Manoj will have a fun time listing all of us seconders. :) Nothing prevents him from just choosing the first 5 seconds, or 5 at random, TTBOMK. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Amon Tobin - Kitchen Sink -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On 11099 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote: Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to vote any more :-) Seriously, could we have this change without voting? Sure, if everyone with a key in the current keyring, ie. including those MIA, sends a seconded (and annoys buxy with it), then, MAYBE, then, one could think about such a stunt. Otherwise its changing the constitution, so nice thought but not possible imo. -- bye Joerg GyrosGeier SCSI benötigt drei Terminierungen, eine am einen Ende, eine am anderen Ende, und das Leben einer Ziege über einer schwarzen Kerze pgpNOxPVQEHCa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On 11099 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Seconded. Thank you for the 542th Seconded. on this proposal. We don't even need to vote any more :-) That said, once we reached the 5 DD who seconded (+2/3 more just to be sure in case of bad signatures), it doesn't bring much to send further seconds IMO. But they also don't hurt to have, and its nice to see lots of people agreeing to something. Ok, they may hurt the secretary, Manoj will have a fun time listing all of us seconders. :) -- bye Joerg cryogen gender is something i'll never really get either cryogen (hmm, that looks bad out of context) pgpHQoRDwHShm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:25:33 +0200, Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 02.08.2007 17:12 schrieb Kalle Kivimaa: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. And that's a good thing. Actually, *if* each and every developer formally seconds the resolution, I think the secretary could forego the actual voting procedure as blatantly obvious. I think even if only each and every developer/2 + 1 would second this, we could be fine without a vote, couldn't we? Well, since this is a constitutional amendment, you need more than a 50% majority Besides the fact this is never going to happen, I agree with Wouter and think it's generally a bad idea. manoj -- Living in the complex world of the future is somewhat like having bees live in your head. But, there they are. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Marc Haber wrote: I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real problems in the project. Which, of course and quite naturally, simply vanish when they take the burdon of being DPL another year. Regards, Joey -- Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:29:46AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Marc Haber wrote: I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real problems in the project. Which, of course and quite naturally, simply vanish when they take the burdon of being DPL another year. I didn't say that. I just suggested that it might be easier to do big changes if one has adequate time to prepare. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Steve Langasek wrote: I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that way the DPL will be suitably encouraged to make sure the release never stalls out ;) How long will you be DPL? I'll go when I'm ready to go... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I know the job is for two years, but I only want to do half the job, so please vote for me, I'm better than those others who are willing to do the whole job. I'd better have someone do the job for only one year than someone not doing the job for two years, but YMMV :) JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:38:15AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time. FWIW, I believe that 2 years is too long, both for the DPL who may have to assign much more time to it than now, and for the project that may suffer under one DPL and would suffer even longer. I don't think suffer under a DPL is the right word. Never the less, I do not intend to touch the recall vote procedure, so I don't think this could go too far. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the reasons outlined by Jeff in: http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html I'll summarize those as if people want continuity in people on (the board/the DPL position/whatever), they can re-elect them. I don't think it works that way. Given an apparently non-active incumbent and a much-promising challenger, people are more likely to vote for the much-promising challenger (provided this challenger is promising what the electorate wants, of course). It doesn't matter whether the incumbent is really non-active, or whether they've had to do much behind-the-scenes work to be able to get something done. Having a two-year term allows them a bit more leeway in that regard. But that's just my opinion; YMMV, and I never got any classes in anything related to political sciences. Additionally, I do think that having a vote about a new leader every year gets old rather quickly, with the electorate having hardly forgotten the previous elections as the next already start. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. Yes, indeed. One of the main reasons why I haven't brought this up before is the understanding that being a DPL is a very demanding job, and that perhaps two years might be too long. Add the observation that Martin Michlmayr just wasn't very active anymore near the end of his second term, as is the case for Wichter Akkerman, and you'll understand why I do have second thoughts. OTOH, probably a longer term sets other expectations, and it won't be so much of a problem. Still, the input of some ex-DPL on that point is surely valuable. I've felt the same thing for a while as well. One year isn't much time to get anything done; it's barely enough time to build up the rapport required to start getting things done. Exactly. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: PS, probably too obvious to mention, but such an amendment needs to only take effect at the next election cycle. Yes, no doubt about that. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wednesday 1 August 2007 01:46, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. Met vriendelijke groet, Your Dutch seems up to par, but why are you talking Dutch to a German guy? Or am I splitting West Germanic hairs here? Thijs pgpgSW3hTfdBa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi, * Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-01 13:49]: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: Hi, * Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]: [...] I second this. According to § 3 of the Procedures for submitting a General Resolution proposal or amendment [¹] you are _only_ seconding items 5.2.1 trough 5.2.3 and part of 5.2.4. Is that what you would like to do? ¹ http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal Thanks for pointing me out to this, I wanted to second all items. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpgnnbdgblnr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 22:38, Martin Schulze wrote: FWIW, I believe that 2 years is too long, both for the DPL who may have to assign much more time to it than now, and for the project that may suffer under one DPL and would suffer even longer. I wonder if a better course might not be to keep the term at one year but move the election forward three months. Not many people can commit to a year of being DPL on short notice. Being DPL-in-waiting for a few months allows people to organize their personal lives and also provides time to prepare for the major projects they intend to pursue as DPL. --Mike Bird, non-DD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the reasons outlined by Jeff in: http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html I'll summarize those as if people want continuity in people on (the board/the DPL position/whatever), they can re-elect them. I don't think it works that way. Well, it does elsewhere. On the other hand, there were a couple of assumptions in Jeff's message that don't seem to apply to Debian: ] We don't have a lot of churn and we don't have too many people standing for ] the committee. Thus, elections are more of a checkpoint than an earthquake. ] They give the committee the opportunity to step back, reassess, take new ] ideas into account, and move on. Plus, it's unlikely that former members ] would completely disappear - they can always help the transition. I mean: we do have a fair bit of churn, we do have a bunch of people standing for DPL (eight or nine people per position, as opposed to SPI's latest election which had 2.2 people per position, eg), elections do have a bit of a tendency towards being earthquakes, and former members often do disappear... Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Nominations this year were:
1st week (4th-10th):
Gustavo Franco (5th)
Wouter Verhelst (6th)
Sven Luther (6th)
Aigars Mahinovs (9th)
2nd week (11th-17th):
Sam Hocevar (14th)
3rd week (18th-24th):
Steve McIntyre (19th)
Raphael Hertzog (20th)
Anthony Towns (23rd)
Simon Richter (23rd)
Nominations in 2006 were:
1st week (5th - 11th)
Lars Wirzenius (10th - withdrawn on the 23rd)
2nd week (12th - 18th)
Ari Pollak (18th)
3rd week (19th - 26th)
Jeroen van Wolffelaar (19th)
Steve McIntyre (20th)
Anthony Towns (23rd)
Andreas Schuldei (23rd)
Ted Walther (25th)
Bill Allombert (26th)
Nominations in 2005 were:
1st week (7th - 13th)
Matthew Garrett (7th)
Andreas Schuldei (7th)
2nd week (14th - 20th)
3rd week (21st - 27th)
Angus Lees (24th)
Anthony Towns (25th)
Jonathan Walther (26th)
Branden Robinson (27th)
That seems to imply people nominate either more or less as soon as
nominations open, or a few days before they close (or, in Sam's case,
when the date's convenient for a bit of fun); so reducing it from three
weeks to one seems pretty feasible.
Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in
the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an extra week for
DPL elections seems unnecessary.
Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like
a win to me. YMMV.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
I second that.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org
pgpBbxPVqp82Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 09:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
I second this.
Thijs
pgp6aNZRpcdX4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Oh, that reminds me.
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code
is in use on a military site... -- Simon Booth
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded
--
liw the hacklab room is the one with a pirate flag, and a venezuelan flag,
and a third flag
liw the other hacklab room is the other hacklab room
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Ana
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded. This was overdue.
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
31: Multimedia-Multitasking
CD-ROM mit Kopfhöreranschluß. (VOBIS Denkzettel)
pgpQXGqdnyzS7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Cheers
Steffen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hi,
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
[...]
I second this.
Kind regards
Nico
--
Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
pgpswkxCvvBZC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
I fully second the quoted text
Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
--
·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
: :' :-- Emma Goldman
`. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (unstable)
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On 11097 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
--
bye Joerg
[Kaffeemaschinen und Babies]
Funktioniert aber so ähnlich: Du füllst oben was rein und unten kommt's braun
raus...
-- Martin Würtele
pgpXga5fF7Fjd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. I've felt the same thing for a while as well. One year isn't much time to get anything done; it's barely enough time to build up the rapport required to start getting things done. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I propose we change section 5.2 of the constitution concerning appointment
of the Project Leader to reduce the nomination period to a week, and the
voting period to two weeks. In wdiff format:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Best regards
Frederik Schüler
--
ENOSIG
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. I've felt the same thing for a while as well. One year isn't much time to get anything done; it's barely enough time to build up the rapport required to start getting things done. I'd prefer to see sth even a bit different: that the mandate is 2 years, and elections every 1.5 years, so that there is a 6 month overlap to create some kind of continuation between DPLs. I've never been DPL (AFAICT) and maybe those who have been can confirm/refute but I'd say that I would love to have such an overlap to be able to continue things the previous DPL started smoothly. Okay some details like who is really in charge during the overlaps has to be sorted out, but well .. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpdYGJ4RnPhb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Anthony Towns wrote: Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like a win to me. YMMV. Well, you could get to 5.5% then by only electing the DPL once every 2 years. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
Don Armstrong
--
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
-- Edmund Burke Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discoontents
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst wrote: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. I'd probably second that, but I'd really appreciate hearing from past and present DPLs, as well as DPL candidates, to decide how to vote on it. PS, probably too obvious to mention, but such an amendment needs to only take effect at the next election cycle. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:48:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On ti, 2007-07-31 at 23:04 +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking as someone who once almost was a candidate, I would like to point out that a two-year commitment is rather more difficult to make for many people than a one-year commitment. That is not a reason to avoid doing it, but it should be considered. Note that you're still free to step down after one year, so that's hardly a problem (of course it's better if you announce your intention to serve only for one year during the campaign...). I know the job is for two years, but I only want to do half the job, so please vote for me, I'm better than those others who are willing to do the whole job. I would not vote for such a candidate; I would not be such a candidate. Your mileage may vary, of course: I am not suggesting my sense of doing the right thing is the right one for everyone. -- You need fewer comments, if you choose your names carefully. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-31 13:35]:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
[...]
I second this.
According to § 3 of the Procedures for submitting a General
Resolution proposal or amendment [¹] you are _only_ seconding items
5.2.1 trough 5.2.3 and part of 5.2.4.
Is that what you would like to do?
¹ http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal
Kind regards
Nico
--
Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Anthony Towns wrote:
=
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the [-following three weeks-] {+first week+} any Developer
may nominate themselves as a candidate Project [-Leader.-]
{+Leader, and summarise their plans for their term.+}
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning [-(to make their
identities-] and [-positions known).-] {+discussion.+} If there
are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then the
nomination period is extended for [-three further weeks,-] {+an
additional week,+} repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next [-three-] {+two+} weeks are the polling period during
which Developers may cast their votes. Votes in leadership
elections are kept secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (4.2) and the default option is None
Of The Above.
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
=
Seconded.
Cheers
Luk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:13:05AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Wouter Verhelst wrote: While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year term, or so. Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time. I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that way the DPL will be suitably encouraged to make sure the release never stalls out ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 06:20:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Please formulate a GR and I'll second it immediately. 18-24 months seems sensible, annual elections are a waste of everyone's time. I know, we should set the DPL term to be equal to the release cycle; that way the DPL will be suitably encouraged to make sure the release never stalls out ;) Or be encouraged to ensure it always stalls out -- malevolent dictator for life! But at least the DPL candidates for the next term would be so encouraged, and there's more of them, so maybe it'd work out anyway! Personally, I think annual elections are a good thing, pretty much for the reasons outlined by Jeff in: http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-July/msg00030.html That seems to work better elsewhere than in Debian; it might be to do with electing a group rather than an individual, or it could be more specific to Debian -- we at least tend to spend more time and effort on the campaigning part than other groups do, from what I've seen, so that might make a difference. Having it be one year or two wouldn't have changed whether I'd run or not. It might've let me spend two months on each thing rather than one month, which might've been more effective; but I don't think it would've changed the way dunc-tank or the release went. I imagine I'd've been more comfortable continuing as DPL after the recall stuff had I been re-elected this year, than if it'd just been a two-year term, but I don't know. I think it's worth noting that the DPL terms so far have been routinely short: Ian Murdock: 2 years, 7 months Bruce Perens: 1 year, 8 months Ian Jackson: 1 year Wichert Akkerman: 2 years, 2 months Ben Collins: 1 year Bdale Garbee: 1 year Martin Michlmayr: 2 years Branden Robinson: 1 year Anthony Towns:1 year Sam Hocevar: 3 months and counting Huh, going by the repeating 2-1-1 pattern, Sam's due for a two year stint. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
