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=167556&cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]