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

Q: guidelines for post-campaign period?

Mr. Secretary,

The Debian Constitution[1] describes the DPL election process as

5.2. Appointment

   1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
   2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant,
      or (if it is too late already) immediately.
   3. For the following three weeks any Developer may nominate themselves as a
      candidate Project Leader.
   4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
      candidates should use this time for campaigning (to make their identities
      and positions known). If there are no candidates at the end of the
      nomination period then the nomination period is extended for three further
      weeks, repeatedly if necessary.
   5. The next three weeks are the polling period during which Developers may
      cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept secret, even
      after the election is finished.
   6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have nominated
      themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The Above. If None Of
      The Above wins the election then the election procedure is repeated, many
      times if necessary.
   7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section §A.6 of
      the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same as for a
      General Resolution (§4.2) and the default option is "None Of The Above".
   8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.

Given the above, do you interpret the Constitution as forbidding any
activities during the polling period that are permitted during the
campaigning period, with the exeception of the casting of ballots?

In other words, would you regard it as irregular if the candidates
continued to engage in discussion that makes "their identities and
positions known", even after the close of the campaigning period?

I am requesting an official interpretation of the Constitution on this
point, in your capacity as Debian Project Secretary.  If you feel this
issue is not ripe for adjudication, then a simple advisory opinion will
serve just fine.

Thank you!

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
[2] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution (section 7.1.3)

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      If encryption is outlawed, only
branden@debian.org                 |      outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: