Mr. Secretary,
The Debian Constitution[1] describes the DPL election process as
follows:
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant,
or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3.
Mr. Secretary,
The Debian Constitution[1] describes the DPL election process as
follows:
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant,
or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:29:22 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mr. Secretary, The Debian Constitution[1] describes the DPL election
> process as follows:
> 5.2. Appointment
> 1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
> 2. The election begins nine weeks before the lea
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:29:22 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, would you regard it as irregular if the candidates
> continued to engage in discussion that makes "their identities and
> positions known", even after the close of the campaigning period?
Given Manoj's
> How about you keep it to summaries of mailing list threads and IRC
> conversations or similar? Ideally something self-centered, too, as a
> summary of another candidate's position will likely result in the other
> candidate feeling that they've been (deliberately?) misrepresented,
> which would j
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> new material :) I think a three-week voting period is sensible as it
> allows people
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:36:46AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:34:45 -0500
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> > rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> > new
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> period is a good thing?
Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that woul
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
So they can stop reading.
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
> day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that would
> lead to a change in their opinion.
But wait, if there is some piece of information out there that could
ch
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:14:11 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
>> period is a good thing?
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have t
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
> A long voting period withought campaigning allows for people to read
> over the materi
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> > to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
> > A long v
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to b
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to be dismissed.
>
> In th
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > > incomplete information,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would place a much higher premium on
> the ability to change ones mind given fresh information, rather than
> having my vote be writ in stone. If there is new information that
> would change my mind
Anthony Towns writes:
> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling place on
election d
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> >
> >> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> >> days before the actual election.
> >
> > Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
>
> In the US, campaig
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:59:48 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In that case I wonder why no rebuttals were posted and why the IRC
> debate was called off, if obviously there is more need for
> information and discussion.
I see where the problem lies. You think we are the B
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:42:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> > days before the actual election.
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
And? You are aware there are other countries in
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The details actually vary, but the point is that there is no
> *time-based* limitation. Indeed, campaigning is predictably heavy on
> the last few days and the day itself.
Perhaps it's only limited in civilised countries :-)
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising for
> the three full days before an election.
Yeah, I was assuming something like that from what Anthony said. It's
not very common elsewhere I think.
Anthony Towns writes:
> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
> of my mail? If you're not sure whether to accept some
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:50:17 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising
> for the three full days before an election.
Umm. The link below tells us that there is a blackout, but not
the rationale for it. And why is
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
>> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
>> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
>> of my mail? If y
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure
>> it's rare in Europe as well.
> I thought restrictions or bans on campaigning on the actual *day* of the
> election were fairly common in contintental Europe, actually.
Well there exist such a ban in
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 05:18:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:50:17 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising
> > for the three full days before an election.
>
> Umm. The link below t
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:29:22 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mr. Secretary, The Debian Constitution[1] describes the DPL election
> process as follows:
> 5.2. Appointment
> 1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
> 2. The election begins nine weeks before the lea
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:29:22 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, would you regard it as irregular if the candidates
> continued to engage in discussion that makes "their identities and
> positions known", even after the close of the campaigning period?
Given Manoj's
> How about you keep it to summaries of mailing list threads and IRC
> conversations or similar? Ideally something self-centered, too, as a
> summary of another candidate's position will likely result in the other
> candidate feeling that they've been (deliberately?) misrepresented,
> which would j
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> new material :) I think a three-week voting period is sensible as it
> allows people
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:36:46AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:34:45 -0500
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:03:08AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> > Given Manoj's answer which basically says you guys can agree to whatever
> > rules of conduct you want, I'd like to ask that you *not* generate any
> > new
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> period is a good thing?
Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that woul
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
> > period is a good thing?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 06:14:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time to
> read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
So they can stop reading.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have to check every
> day to see whether some new twist in the campaign has arisen that would
> lead to a change in their opinion.
But wait, if there is some piece of information out there that could
ch
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:14:11 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could I ask why you "not generating new material" during the voting
>> period is a good thing?
> Because, obviously, people who already voted would have t
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
> A long voting period withought campaigning allows for people to read
> over the materi
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:46 -0500, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some people want to make an informed decision, but don't have time
> > to read hundreds of pages worth of mailing list discussion.
>
> > A long v
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to b
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > incomplete information, the possibility of getting relevant
> > information ought not to be dismissed.
>
> In th
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:29:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > A long campaigning period still does not result in perfect
> > > information. Given that I have to make a decision in the face of
> > > incomplete information,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would place a much higher premium on
> the ability to change ones mind given fresh information, rather than
> having my vote be writ in stone. If there is new information that
> would change my mind
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> days before the actual election.
Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
>> days before the actual election.
>
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
In the US, campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of a polling
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> >> days before the actual election.
> >
> > Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
>
>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:59:48 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In that case I wonder why no rebuttals were posted and why the IRC
> debate was called off, if obviously there is more need for
> information and discussion.
I see where the problem lies. You think we are the B
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:42:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
> > days before the actual election.
> Huh? In this country it's certainly not.
And? You are aware there are
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The details actually vary, but the point is that there is no
> *time-based* limitation. Indeed, campaigning is predictably heavy on
> the last few days and the day itself.
Perhaps it's only limited in civilised countries :-)
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising for
> the three full days before an election.
Yeah, I was assuming something like that from what Anthony said. It's
not very common elsewhere I think.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
> of my mail? If you're not sure whe
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:50:17 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising
> for the three full days before an election.
Umm. The link below tells us that there is a blackout, but not
the rationale for it. And why is
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And? You are aware there are other countries in the world, right? You're
>> also aware that "common" doesn't mean universal, and that whether it
>> happens in 10% of cases or 90% doesn't make any difference to the point
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure
>> it's rare in Europe as well.
> I thought restrictions or bans on campaigning on the actual *day* of the
> election were fairly common in contintental Europe, actually.
Well there exist such a ban in
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 05:18:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:50:17 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In Australia we have a 'blackout' on electronic media advertising
> > for the three full days before an election.
>
> Umm. The link below t
60 matches
Mail list logo
