[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FW: Re: Vote taking software

>>"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

	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

        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. 


 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: