Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
    Marcus> If I were nominated, I surely wouldn't make any hard
    Marcus> concrete promise about any particular issue. I would
    Marcus> always leave room to change my opinion upon new facts
    Marcus> revealed to me in the process. Answering yes/no to a
    Marcus> question of intention is possible, but not very
    Marcus> meaningful.

Good point.

I wouldn't want an elected DPL to blindly do X, because that is what
he/she promised before the election, when new evidence comes to light
that indicates that X is bad (eg. perhaps some new solution Y is
suggested that removes the need for X).

If for instance, a DPL said "yes I will take action on X", and was
latter convinced that X is wrong, then either the DPL can do X anyway
(the wrong thing) or not do X (which some have stated they would
interpret as a lie).

Back to the original question, I think it would be more important
to find out "what steps do you plan to take to resolve the non-free
debate?"

I would expect something like a step by step process, eg:

1. arrange for public vote.
2. kill the opposition.
3. make the change.
4. issue resolved.

I think this conveys all the information the voters need (in the above
case the candidate is extremely biased and probably should not be
elected), but at the same time doesn't lock the candidate down to any
single decision.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>