Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral
> > panel than now. [...]
> It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the
> panel; so it should be as neutral as possible. [...]
I didn't mean to suggest that you discriminated. Merely that
panellists self-selected after seeing some nominations this year.
> > The time this year was decided about 5 days after nominations
> > closed:-
> > Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html
> Right; I imposed a time limitation on the responses from the
> candidates to the debate schedule, and a rapid last call to the
> scheduled time. I don't think that time can be cut down very much [...]
OK. Can you remember/extract what happened when between 24 Feb and 2
Mar? Did you contact candidates when they nominated or after close of
Lars Wirzenius <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about
> various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion
> really does sound to me like too little time.
Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after
the IRC debate but before voting closes.
Also, I think cutting the "talking shop" campaign-only period is still
worth it, even if the IRC debate wouldn't happen in its current form.
It looks like it didn't happen in 2004, or before 2002.
Any more seconds for the top of the thread to at least put this as an
option on the ballot, please?
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/