Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2009: Call for nominations
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 09:41:08PM +0100, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> The new project leader term starts on Friday the 17th of April,
> 2009. The time line looks like:
>
> | Period | Start| End|
> |+--+|
> | Nomination | Sunday, March 1st, 2009 | Saturday, March 7th, 2009 |
> | Campaign | Sunday, March 8th, 2009 | Saturday, March 28th, 2009 |
> | Vote | Sunday, March 29th, 2009 | Saturday, April 11th, 2009 |
>
> Prospective leaders should be familiar with the constitution, but
> just to review: there's a one week period when interested
> developers can nominate themselves and announce their platform,
> followed by a three week period intended for campaigning, followed
> by two weeks for the election itself.
I hereby nominate myself for the forthcoming DPL elections.
Platform will be announced in a few days.
Cheers.
PS oh gosh, I didn't realize how embarrassing can be to send the
"nominate myself" post until now :)
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Dear all, The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is 'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come up again. To avoid overloading -project I'd like to move the initial discussion somewhere else. If you are interested in developing the ballot options for this, please follow up on -vote. We'll move back to -project when there are more firm suggestions. I'm going to try and outline what I think are the issues and relevant factions. Please use this as a starting point for finding out where there are disagreements and what points of view people have in order to construct a clear ballot. We're not aiming to decide what is the right answer in the discussion, we are aiming to decide what is the right question and so I hope the discussion can remain polite. Because we have disagreements about whether or not supermajority is required, I would like all of these votes to explicitly amend the constitution in all options, so it is completely clear. After the first vote that may not matter for the rest, of course and this is why I would like this vote to be the first one to run. Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents, but doesn't explicitly amend it; does this count as amending it? If it does not, then how is this reconciled with the fact that we have just agreed to do something which would contravene our own foundation documents? Positions (in no particular order): - The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't matter what the difference is. - Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always needs 3:1. - Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual delegates/ developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they see fit. - The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG issues if it's needed for things to work. - Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes do (and slightly orthogonal, but:) - Ballots which are ambiguous about resolving the clash between them and a FD should be rejected and not run. Constitutional/FD interpretations Someone sometimes will need to interpret the constitution or other FDs, however well we word it (but I think where we find disagreements/ambiguities we should then fix them) Positions: - Secretary does it - DPL does it - some other group (eg the TC does it) - The DD making the relevant decision does it Release team vs DFSG issues DFSG applies to sid. If it's there and no-one has removed it, the RT can snapshot the archive at any point for the release. DFSG or other RC bugs; it's up to them whether to ignore them. This is possibly a subset of the above two items, however, I think it's important enough to warrant being explicitly specified. Positions: - RT can snapshot releases whenever and ignore whatever bugs they like - If it's not a regression there's no problem, we're still improving, there's no point in delaying releases for it. - No, the release is what counts, transitive problems in sid less so, but we mustn't release with DFSG problems I'm sure there are other related positions I've missed off too. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL Debates [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009]
Steve Langasek wrote: [...] > I'd like to raise the question of whether these IRC debates are really > something we should have. I know Don and the panelists put a lot of time > and effort into making the debates happen, which is part of why I ask the > question: is it really worth all this effort? What do we get out of a > three-hour real-time IRC debate that we don't already get from the > candidates' platforms and three weeks of discussion on debian-vote? I think the main thing I get is to see whether anyone is a hothead like I was or whether their first instincts are to ramble or spout buzzwords, as well as how well some of the candidates respond within fairly tight deadlines. Possibly interesting leadership skills. Even so, I feel we could shorten it quite a bit without significant loss and I think I've written as much before. (Put your own joke about debian being an endurance sport sometimes here.) The more structured (and time-consuming) Q+A part could happen by email beforehand, leaving just the moderated debate (questions from audience) and free-for-all for IRC, maybe as:- Start at 20:30 UTC 1. Introductions 2. Moderated Debate (up to 30 min, questions from audience, candidates answer as soon as ready) -- 5 minute break -- 3. Free For All (30 min of insanity, panel questions from audience) 4. Closing Remarks Stop by 21:55 UTC Would that be better? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DPL Debates [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: >Maybe folks decide who they would like before the voting starts which >would avoid the need for anything like an IRC chat or a ML discussion. >Would it useful to get a sense of how DD's determine who they vote for? >A simple multiple choice questionaire with a few open ended options? If that is the case, then how about simply voting 1 month earlier :-P - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmq3v4ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhu2ACfea2s6/7cwsATC151bHccFfWU DYAAnRQpP3Etjxxm6Xgiaptc2rbE23YP =AFxg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DPL Debates [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009]
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:50:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 02:10:38AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > | Period | Start| End| > > > |+--+| > > > | Nomination | Sunday, March 1st, 2009 | Saterday, March 7th, 2009 | > > > | Campaign | Sunday, March 8th, 2009 | Saterday, March 28th, 2009 | > > > | Vote | Sunday, March 29th, 2009 | Saterday, April 11th, 2009 | > > > > I suggest that potential DPL candidates start getting their platform > > > ready. I would like to receive them before the campaign period > > > start. > > > As I've apparently volunteered to moderate the debate again,[0] it > > falls to me to remind prospective candidates to calculate their > > schedule for the week of the 21st->28th, and soon after they self > > nominate forward the times during that week which they can absolutely > > not debate as well as times that they'd rather not debate to me. [This > > will help me to avoid having to schedule the debate smack in the > > middle of some erstwhile candidate's coffin time.[0.577]] > > > Those who have suggestions for alterations to the format can also make > > those known in a reply to this message (refer to last year's debate > > format[1] if you've forgotten what we did last year, suffer from > > amnesia or are incapable of forming long term memories or faking them > > by the creative use of google and blogs). > > > People who'd like to help run the debate and/or collect questions can > > also volunteer with a message to -vote. > > I'd like to raise the question of whether these IRC debates are really > something we should have. I know Don and the panelists put a lot of time > and effort into making the debates happen, which is part of why I ask the > question: is it really worth all this effort? What do we get out of a > three-hour real-time IRC debate that we don't already get from the > candidates' platforms and three weeks of discussion on debian-vote? > > All I see that we get is a measure of how comfortable the candidate is with > (English-language) IRC as a medium, which is just not that interesting to me > as a factor in deciding who I'm going to vote for as DPL. Is it to other > people, or are others getting something else out of this that I'm > overlooking? > > For the last two election cycles, I've ignored the IRC debate completely, > and I don't feel that I missed anything. Am I mistaken? People gather their impressions and opinions about the candidates from a variety of settings, contexts, dialogs, meetings, etc. There are various inputs that folks use: does the person share my views on (the DFSG, the GPL, etc.), are they likeable, do they solve group conflicts well, are they from my country, have I worked with them on a project, did I meet them at a conference, and a lot of other things. Maybe folks decide who they would like before the voting starts which would avoid the need for anything like an IRC chat or a ML discussion. Would it useful to get a sense of how DD's determine who they vote for? A simple multiple choice questionaire with a few open ended options? or maybe ask if the IRC chat affect their choice in any election? -K -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |___ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
