Re: FW: Re: Vote taking software
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <email@example.com> 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> firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E