Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty
> about the DPL's powers.
There is no uncertainty about the period of DPL powers. The power
transfer date has been clearly stated in recent years, hasn't it?
> 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.
Posting to d-d-a is power of ~all DDs. In fact, that's not the DPL
I'm complaining about. It would not have hurt for the 2IC to delay
that announcement, or at least part of it, for a week. That's just
one example of campaigning happening outside the campaign-only period,
which is the motivation for the other amendment I proposed.
[...]
> 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.
>
> The election period does not end when the vote ends, and so your
> amendment defeats the whole purpose of aj's proposal.
The DPL-elect has not taken office when the vote ends for years now,
and that hasn't been a problem, has it? It would take a really petty
DPL to use their powers to sabotage the DPL-elect in the way being
suggested. Indeed, such acts are probably against the DPL procedures.
If we ever elect a really petty DPL, we've far bigger problems than
the handover weeks!
This amendment merely normalises the handover. Please support it.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Reply to: