Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:27:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > [...] and b) there is no clear-cut and
> > objective criteria currently to identify those people who do make
> > regular contributions without being a developer.
> Unless something has changed since I last looked, the NM process
> was hardly clear-cut or objective either.
No, but signing uploads is.
> > Put differently, here are a number of questions you should answer for
> > this to have merit:
> > * What should a non-DD contributor be doing before we consider him/her
> > eligible to vote?
> Making a worthwhile contribution to the project. Interestingly,
> self-censorship by non-members allows projects such as Indymedia
> to function with much weaker membership qualification than debian.
There's a major difference between a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Indymedia and
doing all kinds of bad things, and a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Debian and
doing all kinds of bad things. At least in my opinion, there is; YMMV.
> > * How should we link their key to their identity, so that we *know* a
> > given key belongs to some non-DD contributor? For DDs, we know because
> > we've seen their uploads. For contributors, we don't see their
> > uploads, so we can only know through key signing, which is a weaker
> > criterion (unless they sign their contributions with their GPG key).
> We should see submissions by contributors and those could be signed.
How would you suggest to implement that?
> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to vote on just about anything?
> > If not, what types of votes should they be allowed to vote on, and
> > what types of votes should they not be allowed to vote on? Make this a
> > clear rule, so that you can apply it to any possible and impossible
> > thing we might have an idea about voting on.
> - Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> - Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
> - Override any decision by the Technical Committee.
I have no real objection to the above.
> - Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
I do have a problem with this one. As part of NM, you formally agree to
uphold the Social Contract and the DFSG. This is what gives us a common
Therefore, I don't think we want people to co-decide what our
philosophical position is regarding some practical subject if they
haven't gone through NM. Even if, by the fact that they contribute, it
can logically be deduced that they probably do agree with our
> I exclude the power to amend the constitution, which they've agreed to
> even less than developers. All of the others affect the work done by
> contributors in some way, so I think there's an argument for giving
> them a voice. Maybe one or more of the above should be subdivided, but
> I'm not sure.
The power to amend the constitution would also affect their work; so I
don't think that should be an argument.
> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to propose General Resolutions?
> Only ones that they can vote on.
Yeah, that'd make sense.
> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to nominate themselves as DPL?
> No, it should require a number of seconds.
Even then, personally I'm not convinced.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4