Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is
> uncertainty about the DPL's powers.
There's really no uncertainty about them, though. The outgoing DPL is
still in power until the post becomes vacant at the end of the term.
> During elections, it's hard for an incumbent DPL to use his powers, for
> fear of stuff like
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00162.html happening.
Reactions to doing your job during the entirely of your term are just
going to happen, some well thought out, some merely gut responses.
[That particular message isn't such a good example though, because
it's a reaction to something which was done which isn't a power of the
DPL by someone who was not the DPL.]
> Right after the election (or vote, if you please), if the DPL-elect
> is not the incumbent DPL and was elected on a platform that is
> sufficiently different from the incumbent DPL's platform and/or
> conduct as DPL, then having the incumbent DPL stay in office for too
> long is questionable.
I'm of the opinion that three weeks to bring all currently open
projects to a position where they can be smoothly transfered to the
DPL-elect is desirable.
> The election period does not end when the vote ends, and so your
> amendment defeats the whole purpose of aj's proposal.
The election period does end, though. Only a transition period is
added in which can be used as a buffer zone in case the nomination
period and/or voting period needs to be extended.
Don Armstrong
--
If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a
creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't
have one either?
-- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556&cid=13970629
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: