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: Results for General Resolution: Endorse concept of Debian maintainers
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:04:52AM -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Debian Project Secretary wrote: Hi, The resolution passes, with 386 votes from 345 developers. Hi Manoj, Could this be posted to d-d-a too, please? I'm not subscribed to d-vote and it's only by happenstance that I saw this in the email archives. hmm, now that I look again, the mail headers in the archived message show that it was sent there, but it doesn't appear in the d-d-a web archives and I didn't receive a copy. Wonder what happened to it. I guess it is because it was not signed by DD's signiture. Osamu -- 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 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: Results for General Resolution: Endorse concept of Debian maintainers
Hmmm... sorry. Time to go sleep. I retract my previous post. Good night. -- 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:
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]
