Re: Picking a new member - process [and 1 more messages]
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> But, having said that, if there are candidates that Russ thinks ought to
> be on the ballot then all that has to happen is for him to propose them.
> But personally I think it would be better not to vote on candidates that
> (based on the private discussion) we don't think stand a serious chance
> of winning.
I would vote many other candidates above further discussion. However,
based on the previous discussion, I believe one of the two people
currently on the ballot are most likely to win, so from that perspective
adding more people seems unlikely to change the outcome.
> I think that the consensus is indeed that we should have one of the two
> people currently on the ballot. There is disagreement or uncertainty
> about which.
Okay, that makes sense.
> There is no agreement about what the criteria are for being on the
> ballot. The Constitution sets the process, and it is clear from it that
> TC members are free to nominate anyone they feel like.
> My personal view is that I would definitely want to vote on my own first
> choice.
> If I felt there was a significant chance of the vote going to someone I
> felt unsuitable I would want to nominate all the suitable candidates
> with a chance of winning. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
That also makes sense. I think I was just confused as to what process we
were using.
> I would normally rather avoid voting on a candidate that any TC member
> had said they would rank below FD (assuming that the TC member who said
> this had what appeared to me to be cogent reasons). Certainly, I would
> not nominate such a candidate unless I felt they had a good chance of
> winning. The reason being that it is not worth forcing other TC members
> to decide between snubbing the candidate and misrepresenting their
> views, unless we really have to to get the right answer.
I do think this is unfortunate, although that doesn't mean I think you're
wrong.
Were I a candidate, I would be happy to be voted on, even if that meant
being voted below further discussion, because that would be useful
feedback to me. However, I would probably want to ask the people who
voted that way why they voted that way, and I recognize that may be an
uncomfortable line of discussion. I think it's an uncomfortable line of
discussion that I'd benefit from, and I'd try to treat it as constructive
feedback.
That said, I realize that the possible personal tensions here are awkward,
which is part of why the DPL vote is anonymous.
I don't have any good solutions. I don't really have any cogent reasons
not to go down the path that we're on, now that I understand it. It feels
to me like open voting on everyone nominated would be more ideal for
openness and for public feedback, but also riskier, and possibly
uncomfortable.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: