> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > It's probably better than the first solution, as the first solution isn't > > clone-proof: we could have elected n Sams!! ;) So the first question is why would that be a bad thing? (Of course, we don't have n Sams, we only have one, so there'll be alternative points of view no matter what; but let's go with the hypothetical) Having one person do all the work can be a problem if they're not available or get exhausted, but if those are the only problems we're trying to solve by having a committee instead of one person, having "n Sams" does actually solve it, and doesn't come at a cost of creating friction and indecisiveness within the group, which is the downfall of lots of committees. On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:48:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I've had enough bad experiences with committees and groups in the past > that I've developed a deep dislike of voting or nomination systems that > don't take into account the ability of the chosen slate to work with each > other. I'd rather end up with a weaker candidate who can cooperate with > the leading candidate than the two strongest candidates who will then be > at loggerheads. On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:24:38PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Or, we could elect a list directly (ie each option is a list of people > > willing to work together as SC), which would allow to elect a SC which > > is actually representative for Debian. > This means parties, and I don't see any proof that this would help with > being representative? It doesn't necessarily mean parties in the normal sense. You could, eg, have two rounds of nominations; first letting people nominate themselves to be on the committee, then letting the nominees pick their "dream team", so if your nominees for a three person committee are Alice, Bob, Carol, Dave, Eve, and Fred, they might pick their teams as: Alice, Carol, Eve Bob, Carol, Fred Carol, Bob, Alice Dave, Bob, Carol Eve, Alice, Bob Fred, Carol, Dave ie, you can get a genuine mix, rather than just a party-line split (Alice, Carol, Eve versus Bob, Dave and Fred, eg). It still doesn't guarantee representation though; you could easily have 49% of people wanting Fred (or at least Dave or Bob) on board, with the other 51% voting for the Alice, Carol and Eve ticket. But then, maybe we feel comfortable relying on the 51% to notice the 49% strongly want a guy on board, and deciding to vote for the Carol, Bob and Alice or Eve, Alice and Bob ticket instead as a compromise -- you only need a few people from the 51% to do that to end up with a 49%/49%/2% split, with the result being a compromise. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature