Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:35:07 +0100
- Message-id: <46e966bb.VMBwhMuspWgs/Z4cfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20070913142444.GD10684@country.grep.be>
- References: <46b9dd4f.spnvEcT6oYoQ6Ddvemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <46ba4077.BvRntu1lsrT6email@example.com> <20070809014749.GG18616@volo.donarmstrong.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <46badd77.EL4l0L2entPdJHzXemail@example.com> <20070811191558.GE21979@country.grep.be> <46befca0.CUIA3VNFW9a/tFzPfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20070812132714.GC5209@country.grep.be> <[🔎] 20070913142444.GD10684@country.grep.be>
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> Can we have a vote?
Thanks for calling the vote. AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm
new to this), I'm supposed to submit this summary:
Point 2 stays the same, to allow three weeks buffer zone.
and this WML now:
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">MJ Ray</A> [email@example.com]
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">Aníbal Monsalve Salazar</A> [email@example.com]
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">Simon Richter</A> [email@example.com]
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)</A> [email@example.com]
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">Wesley J. Landaker</A> [email@example.com]
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">Gaudenz Steinlin</A> [email@example.com]
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Having a buffer zone of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or
cases where the nomination period must be extended. A buffer zone has
been included in DPL elections in recent years.
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I didn't suggest to forbid campaigning outside the campaigning period.
> > There's no need; a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The
> > fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it
> > usually is. The only cases that I've seen where campaigning occurred
> > outside the campaigning period were either cases where something was
> > interpreted as campaigning while it wasn't intended as such, or a reply
> > to a question that was asked during the last few hours or minutes of the
> > campaigning period. Those are minor things, and they shouldn't be a
> > problem.
I didn't see the above message before and I don't agree with the
assertions in it. Of course anyone campaigning in an unconventional
way will claim it wasn't intended as campaigning if challenged, else
they would lose votes. There's no arbiter(sp!) and no fear because
it's only a convention. So, using a convention instead of setting a
rule one way or the other favours insincere politicians.
Nevertheless, that amendment seems dead, so I guess we're stuck with a
convention for now.
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct