Hi Paul, On 14/03/2016 03:53, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi Mehdi, > > Any thoughts on the low amount of DPL candidates this year? The only > year we have had a sole candidate was when zack ran for second-term > re-election in 2011, which is a quite different situation to this > one, where the previous DPL is not running for re-election. >
TBH, I don't think the situation is new. We've always been tangent and never had many candidates (except a few times). I agree that the situation may be surprising (and I was also surprised no one else was standing up), but I don't think there is any conclusion to draw except maybe that people realize the difficulty of the DPL job and don't take it lightly. Instead, I think we have to find new ways to encourage people to (at least) consider nominating themselves next time. We could imagine for example IRC Q&A sessions to better explain the job and what it takes to do it. Then, we have to think about how to effectively off-load the DPL, but it requires categorizing activities and estimating % of time spent for each one. > How do you think this situation reflects on the health of the Debian > project? > I would not generalize this as a symptom of an unhealthy situation of Debian. The DPL job is not an easy one. We cannot blame people for not nominating themselves. > Do you think we should vote for NOTA until someone else nominates > themselves? > If you meant to collectively vote for NOTA, then I think that this is the best solution to make the situation even worse. IMHO, standing up for a DPL election requires preparation and serious thinking. You don't usually decide within the nomination week, but start preparing it a while before. I am not convinced that waiting for another week will help us to magically find another candidate. If people didn't want to nominate themselves for DPL, then we should not force them to do so. Having "fake" candidates is not doing the project any favor. No one wants an inactive DPL. No one wants a DPL that is unprepared for the job. Last but not least, why would we be requiring a minimum of two candidates? Fake competition is not sane. And I don't think my candidacy would be more serious if we were two candidates. In fact, last year's votes showed that my candidacy was serious enough to have the highest majority. I don't think that your choice last year was motivated by the number of candidates. So, we can also look at this situation from the brighter side: What if voters think we have a good enough candidate and decided to give him his chance? This could also be interpreted as a maturity sign from project members. Indeed, the goal is not to have an exciting campaign with many candidates, but only to choose someone fit for the job. Of course, if project members think otherwise and don't think I am fit for the job, they are free to individually vote for NOTA. Regards, -- Mehdi
