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

Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:42:50 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:

> > > + If there are fewer than S2 candidates
> > > +  at the end of the nomination period, then the nomination period is
> > > +  extended for two further weeks, repeatedly if necessary.</li>
> > > +  <li>If "None Of The Above" wins the election, or if fewer than S2
> > > +  candidates win over "None of the Above", the election process is
> > > +  repeated.</li>
> > How often should the nomination period and the election process be
> > repeated? I'd suggest to include some maximum otherwise they could go
> > on ad infinitum.
> You can see similar rules in other parts of the constitution, see 5.2.4,
> 5.2.6.

I think there's a huge difference between "no candidates" (5.2.4) and
"fewer than S2 candidates" in your proposal, and between "NOTA wins"
(5.2.6) vs. "fewer than S2 candidates over NOTA".

In other words: The threshold is much higer (16 vs. 1 AIUI) and it's
much easier that it won't be reached.

And the regulations in the Constitution seem logically necessary: If
there is not a single candidate or a single winner there has to be
some "else case" whereas your S2 boundary is arbritary (which is not
bad in itself but it could be any other value too).
> Do you think it's likely for it to go on for more than one repetition?
I've no real idea but it might lead to a dead end. And having
infinite nominations/elections because there are e.g. "only" 10 and
not 16 persons seems to defeat the whole idea.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Bob Dylan: Absolutely sweet Marie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: