Le jeudi, 30 novembre 2017, 14.03:15 h CET Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:48:25AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > My rationale is that the private "vote" isn't a vote on the appointment,
> > it's a vote to figure out whether the future appointment vote will have
> > consensus or not.
Given large sets of vetted nominees, it's can also be a "sorting" mechanism.
We could have more consensual candidates than seats to fill at a certain point
in time, so using a condorcet-based process (yes, that's the Standard
Resolution Procedure) helps determining who has consensus _and_ is preferred
at that point in time. We don't want to have to downvote someone in public, so
we make sure the public ballot has only the preferred candidate and FD.
This implies that: a) yes, the private vote is a preliminary vote on
appointment; b) the public vote is usually a mere formality.
(The public vote is only a formality given a relatively unanimous TC though;
and we could have a TC split about whom they'd want to get onboard. The
current process doesn't really address that hypothetical situation.)
> It's a vote that will have effect on the appointment of a person to the
> TC. The constitution specifically wants appointment votes to be public.
> Without wanting to comment on the letter, I think this is contrary to
> the intent.
>
> To be clear, I also think the consitution is wrong to require that such
> votes are public. I think the TC should not have to make appointments in
> public, for the very same reason that we also have secret ballots on DPL
> votes. However, I think the correct course of action here is not to
> ignore the constitution and explain that by some clever choice of words,
> but rather to amend the constitution to make it be in line with that
> rationale.
Would you be interested in drafting a GR for that, or is that too premature?
Cheers
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.