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

Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:38:12 +0100, Alexander Schmehl
<tolimar@debian.org> said:  

> Hi!
> * Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> [070212 03:32]:

>> + <li>The next two weeks are the polling period during which
>> + Developers may cast their votes.  Votes in social committee
>>    elections
>> + are made public after the election is finished.</li>

> And why shall votes become public?  What's voting about, if not done
> in secret?

        I think we should default to open and transparent processes
 as far as possible. And people should be willing to take public
 stances on matters of policy, even social policy.  It is not like you
 are voting for a human who might have his feeling s hurt. 

> And why that rule?  I would think in a social ctte, fresh blood is
> very welcome, because they (probalbly) haven't taken part in any
> flamewar and therefore are the best to choice for a ctte, that
> should be as objective and neutral as possible?

        A social committee needs demosntrated judgement.  People new,
 and inexperienced in the ways of Debian, might not really be better

> Why not some kind of "draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by
> members of the committee, are made public on the Social Committee
> public discussion list. Discussion is made public to those the
> parties involved or at their unison request to all."?

        Again, the default should be open processes, with the
 possibility of taking it behind closed doors (like happens in court
 systems here).  Closed star chambers are not what we are shooting for

[He] took me into his library and showed me his books, of which he had
a complete set. -- Ring Lardner
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: