Re: integrity of elections
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500,
>> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> I did not vote in this election. I know who I'd have voted for, if
> I did vote, but I'm struggling with some more fundamental issues.
The polls are not yet closed.
> More generally, most Debian decisions have been made by an
> "activist elite". So far, that's seemed to work fairly well --
> perhaps because of our charter, we've been able to trust that
> people interested in an issue will make well informed decisions
> about that issue.
I think you are making my original point.
> Or: I don't see the non-involvement of myself (or others) as a sign
> of ill health for the organization. It's the way things have
> always been -- we're a group of volunteer specialists, not
> political activists.
My original point was that people who do not actually
exercise their franchise are unlikely to be one of the active set --
and need to be looked at to see if they are indeed inactive. Having
inactive members is not itself unhealthy, except it does inflate
quorum a trifle, which can be bad in supermajority votes.
Additionally, identifying inactive developers would help in
deciding which packages need attention; un maintained packages do
hurt the project.
This is not the place to discuss the rest of my position as
evidenced in the log; we can shift to -project for that.
"The bonds that links your true family is not one of blood, but of
respect and joy in each others life. Rarely do members of one family
grow up under the same roof." Richard Bach
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C