Re: FW: Re: Vote taking software
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <gecko@benham.net> writes:
Darren> I don't know if I agree. Just because they didn't join (or
Darren> even read) the discussion doesn't mean they shouldn't be
Darren> allowed to vote. They are, after all, maintainers. I don't
Darren> think it's SMART and they wouldn't be informed votes but the
Darren> democratic system doesn't require the voter to know what
Darren> they're voting about -- just look at the elections as we have
Darren> them now :/
Debian is not a strict democracy, thank the lord. We do not
have to implement the worst foibles of the popular
implementations. In Debian, you have to contribute in order to have a
voice at all, it is not as if every member of the list is
franchised.
Dumb and uninformed votes are not an advantage. Everyone
does not need to have a voice in something they have no interest
in. We also have special purpose lists where interested parties hang
out; and opinions there should not be polluted by dumb and uninformed
votes.
Especially for the policy group, uninformed votes are worse
than no votes at all. Moreever, calling for votes in a larger group
is bound to have some one who did not participate in the discussion
and hence wants to rehash everything at this late date. We have a
hard enough time getting closure.
Darren> I'd probably suggest the following format:
Darren> vote@lists.debian.org would be moderated. Votemaster
Darren> would post/foward the proposal for discussion on that
Darren> list and include what list to join if you want to
Darren> read/take part in the discussion to the vote mail
Darren> list. Votemaster places the CFV after the designated
Darren> times and results to the vote list...
I think this is putting emphasis on the wrong end. The vote
taking is not the driving force. The discussion and the general
resolution protocol are.
a) Policy: the newly proposed policy guidelines are followed,
In case of a deadlock, a vote is called, and vote taking lasts a
week or less. We can't post a vote prior to discussion, since very
few discussions should require votes.
b) Opinion Polls: No discussion needed, and opinions are requested
from particiants in specialized areas. We don't want junk votes
from uninterested parties; people who are interested should
already be signed on.
c) In a general resolution, the proposer is the person who handles
the vote. And This is the one case where a list maybe handy;
however, I think that people interested enough in Debian should
alrteady subscribe to debian-devel.
Darren> This way, everybody who's voting will have had a chance to
Darren> see the Proposal, will know where to go for discussion and
Darren> then will see the CFV. The moderated would ensure that
Darren> discussions don't get carried out on the vote list but
Darren> instead on the list that it should be carried out on.
As I said,, the vote is not a foregone conclusion in all
cases. Secondly, a vote in debian-www should not involve people not
interested in debian-www, and so on.
manoj
--
Do not seek death; death will find you. But seek the road which
makes death a fulfillment. Dag Hammarskjold
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: