On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 07:51:14AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Quoting Constitution section 5.2: > > Quoting the same section :-) > > 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes > vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. > 8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election. > > I think it's fairly clear that the office remains vacant during repeated > elections. Oh yes, hmm. I was going by practice instead of theory. On multiple occasions we've been late holding DPL elections, but the sitting DPL did not resign his position. For instance, we were late this year and so Ben Collins's term of office was extended. Technically, this was an irregular thing to do. > If a significant fraction of developers feel that not having a leader > is preferable to appointing any of the candidates on the ballot, then > they should be able to vote that way, and I think it is unwise to > actually choose one of the candidates as a winner in such a case. > > Similarly, if most developers vote for just one candidate and rank > the rest under the default option, then this indicates a major schism > in the project, one that would only be worsened by selecting a winner > that the majority of the project feels so negatively about. I should go count up how many people did this in the last couple of elections. > In summary, I think that leaving the office vacant is in fact a > reasonable default option, and it is the safest option if None Of The > Above is part of a circular tie. I agree. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. branden@debian.org | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpRACOeKXmEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature