Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:44:28AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> even if I'm not perfectly decided whether it might be just practical
> because I doubt that there will be enough cronies in the group of
> volunteers.
Like with the cabal - it's not a matter of if they will be there, but
a matter of having a general impression formed that they are there.
We don't need any more of that and we should steer clear of such a thing.
(See also another rationale in my previous message in reply to Raphael.)
> >I don't think that all other methods involving nominations and voting are
> >such an unbearable overhead.
>
> Running several platforms and doing the usual amount of discussion on
> debian-vote might be some extra burden for those people who are interested.
I'm not sure I understand the concerns with all that. Even our existing
leadership nomination procedure is nowhere near as pointless as real-world
campaigning. We just have people summarize their opinions in one document
(platform), and have one public discussion between them. In the last three
years, the number of nominees for that was 8, 7, 6.
The soc-ctte would probably be up to three times as many people (theoretical
maximum, IMO), but likely considerably smaller platforms (because the
candidates run for a position which has a modicum of specificity, so there's
a decent limit on how many matters they will cover in the platform).
> Sure, there is hopefully no problem to find a replacement. My point was
> that we should explicitely name those positions who should not be a member
> of the soc-ctte.
Okay.
Interestingly enough, we don't have similar provisions in the constitution
(§6.2) for the technical committee. Apparently, the secretary is
a long-time member :) and at least a couple of leaders were too.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: