Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with > > campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly > > people can always change their minds if they like. I'm not sure it's > > worth the effort though. > You can already change your vote by just voting again. Yes, that's my point - since we can do that there's no need to wait until after campaigning to cast votes, we can always change votes if something changes our minds. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with > campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly > people can always change their minds if they like. I'm not sure it's > worth the effort though. You can already change your vote by just voting again. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140331194043.ga31...@roeckx.be
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:20:19PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:56:50PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >That said, I am in favour of keeping the existing voting period. All > >the energetic parts of the DPL election process mostly cease by the > >time the discussion period ends, so a longer voting period doesn't > >cause us to spend more effort on the DPL election. The only benefit > >from shortening the voting period would be to reduce load on > >www.debian.org from people who keep refreshing the results page to see > >if the results are known yet. > Thanks - that matches my own thinking, but better articulated. :-) If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly people can always change their minds if they like. I'm not sure it's worth the effort though. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
Hi Brian, On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:54:50PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the > current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts > are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to > change the status quo? > I don't. There's been quite a bit of talk of this in the past, including limiting to two years, but it seems to me that the issues here aren't reflected in what happens in practice. Firstly, you have Branden, who for unfortunate circumstances had to divert his attention away from the project during his term. The issue there wasn't one that would be solved by a term limit. The flip-side is Stefano, who served for three terms fantastically. I wouldn't want to restrict this unnecessarily. The main reason for trying to put a term limit in place is usually to make sure that people other than the incumbent stand a fair chance of election, as the DPL has a higher profile than others. We shall have to wait for the outcome of this election to see if that's an issue :) For the length, I think there's a large risk of 'scaring away' any candidates - DPL is quite a commitment and I think a two year term (even though my election to being a Councillor was for four!) could be seen as a major issue for people. As you mentioned, it would be possible to have a shorter candidate statement, but at this point, if there's people who wish to run against the DPL anyway, I think that they should be allowed to do so. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, > >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But > >today, it's probably less justified. > > Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? Even if we keep the two-week voting period, there'll be people who can't vote because they're away exactly those two weeks, even if it's fewer of them. Knowing the voting dates beforehand would help with planning. That said, I am in favour of keeping the existing voting period. All the energetic parts of the DPL election process mostly cease by the time the discussion period ends, so a longer voting period doesn't cause us to spend more effort on the DPL election. The only benefit from shortening the voting period would be to reduce load on www.debian.org from people who keep refreshing the results page to see if the results are known yet. Personally, I don't see the need to shorten the DPL election process at all. It's _good_ to stop and review where we are, and what we're about. Spending three weeks on that each year is not too much. I understand that it's much more effort to the DPL candidates themselves, but if you can't handle that, then you probably shouldn't run for DPL. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328135650.ge5...@mavolio.codethink.co.uk
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:56:50PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, >> >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But >> >today, it's probably less justified. >> >> Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? > >Even if we keep the two-week voting period, there'll be people who >can't vote because they're away exactly those two weeks, even if it's >fewer of them. Knowing the voting dates beforehand would help with >planning. ACK. >That said, I am in favour of keeping the existing voting period. All >the energetic parts of the DPL election process mostly cease by the >time the discussion period ends, so a longer voting period doesn't >cause us to spend more effort on the DPL election. The only benefit >from shortening the voting period would be to reduce load on >www.debian.org from people who keep refreshing the results page to see >if the results are known yet. Thanks - that matches my own thinking, but better articulated. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328152019.gb25...@einval.com
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On 28/03/14 at 13:24 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > >What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process > >more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for > >nominations, 3 for compaigning, and 2 for voting. We could reduce that > >to 3/4 weeks, with: > >- election-3 weeks: deadline for nomination (without an explicit start of > > nomination period, other than a mail from the secretary announcing the > > general planning of the election) > >- from election-3w to election-1w: campaign > >- then, one week for voting. > > > >The 3-week campaign period is longer than our default discussion period > >for GRs (2 weeks). I don't think that there's much to gain by having an > >additional week here. > > > >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, > >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But > >today, it's probably less justified. > > Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? What about those who go on vacation without internet access for two weeks, currently? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328135128.gb3...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, > >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But > >today, it's probably less justified. > Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? Or even just busy for that matter, personally it's easy for me to sign things since I use a GnuPG smart card but if I didn't do that or equivalent it'd be a bit of a hassle for me to get access to my key to sign a vote. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? What if they are in vacation for 2 weeks? So, in fact, what you really want to do is to compare the probability that a DD is AFK for 2 weeks with that that she is AFK for 1 week, and balance that with the inconvenience of having a longer election period. I postulate that these days the project members in the following set: (people who go on vacation for 2 weeks MINUS people who go on vacation for 1 week) INTERSECT people who go on vacation in April is statistically indistinguishable from 0, and it will further decrease over time due to Internet penetration in our lives. But even assuming it's a real problem™, we can use very simple solutions to avoid the problem all together. For instance, we can publish the ballots directly at the end of the nomination period, but only accept signed ballots during the (1-week) voting period. That way the very few people in the above set can cron their way around the problem. If I'm reading the time line right, that would actually *increase* the available vote time window by 3 weeks wrt now (or by 1 week with Lucas' calendar). Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process >more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for >nominations, 3 for compaigning, and 2 for voting. We could reduce that >to 3/4 weeks, with: >- election-3 weeks: deadline for nomination (without an explicit start of > nomination period, other than a mail from the secretary announcing the > general planning of the election) >- from election-3w to election-1w: campaign >- then, one week for voting. > >The 3-week campaign period is longer than our default discussion period >for GRs (2 weeks). I don't think that there's much to gain by having an >additional week here. > >The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, >as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But >today, it's probably less justified. Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Is there anybody out there? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328132413.ga25...@einval.com
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
Hi Brian, On 27/03/14 at 19:54 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the > current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts > are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to > change the status quo? > > I ask because it seems that a lot of energy is devoted to the election > every year that might be directed towards other parts of the project. > > One idea that I thought showed promise was the idea of two year terms, > but at the ~10.5 month mark the standing DPL had to confirm they were > serving the second half of their term, or an election would > automatically be triggered. > > Obviously any changes discussed/proposed would not impact this election. I agree that a lot of energy is spent on DPL elections every year. However, I believe that this energy is mostly not lost: a lot of good ideas emerge from debian-vote@ discussions. The duration of DPL terms has been discussed several times, and I'm not convinced that there's much to gain by moving away from the current scheme, due to the added complexity of a reconfirmation process (either only by the current DPL, or using a vote). What we could try to do, though, is to make the yearly election process more efficient. Currently, it spans over 6 weeks, with one week for nominations, 3 for compaigning, and 2 for voting. We could reduce that to 3/4 weeks, with: - election-3 weeks: deadline for nomination (without an explicit start of nomination period, other than a mail from the secretary announcing the general planning of the election) - from election-3w to election-1w: campaign - then, one week for voting. The 3-week campaign period is longer than our default discussion period for GRs (2 weeks). I don't think that there's much to gain by having an additional week here. The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But today, it's probably less justified. Something that I'd also like to see in future elections is stricter deadlines for platforms and rebuttals: I believe that the ability to prioritize so that deadlines are met for important tasks is a required skill for DPLs, and I find it strange that again this year, the publication of platforms and rebuttals was delayed by several days. Also, it raises questions of fairness between candidates when one platform is made public before the others are received. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140328090600.ga28...@xanadu.blop.info
All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to change the status quo? I ask because it seems that a lot of energy is devoted to the election every year that might be directed towards other parts of the project. One idea that I thought showed promise was the idea of two year terms, but at the ~10.5 month mark the standing DPL had to confirm they were serving the second half of their term, or an election would automatically be triggered. Obviously any changes discussed/proposed would not impact this election. -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACFaiRxE+xfWjzhR2ART_8iSOZgyfJeYAL4BBXjV=esxnwz...@mail.gmail.com
