Re: Picking a new member - process
Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> So, I think it's safe to say that this process has, so far, not worked.
>> Only two candidates have been put forward, one by Ian and one by
>> myself.
> Why do you equate this to not working?
> The candidate I intend to rank first is on the ballot, so I really don't
> care if other candidates are on the ballot or not. The process seems to
> be working fine?
Well, Ian's point was that we should have a public vote, and Steve pointed
out that Condorcet often chooses compromise candiates and benefits from a
larger pool from that purpose.
I don't have any inherent objections to a private process -- I think this
decision would benefit from secret ballot, actually, although it's pretty
hard to do that with a small voting pool -- but it does seem contrary to
the intent of the constitutional process as I understand it.
> I'll accept that assertion at face value, but personally, I'm completely
> happy to proceed with a short candidate list on the public ballot.
Well, similarly, my top choice is on the ballot, so I guess you could also
see this as a reflection of a private consensus process. Maybe I should
say instead that it seems surprising?
If we actually do have a consensus, then that's great. I just want to
make sure that's how we're constructing the ballot, since there was some
discussion saying that we should nominate everyone we would vote above
further discussion. If *that's* the process we should be using, I should
nominate a bunch more people.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: