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

Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >  - To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
> > >    require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
> > >    of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
> > >    the vote:
> > >        The Proposer of each resolution or amendment
> > >        The Project Leader
> > >        Each Delegate or group of Delegate(s) named or overruled
> > >        A nominee of the Technical Committee
> > >        A nominee of each Trusted organisation designated according to 9.3
> > 
> > I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
> > selected. I would restrict it to:
> > - The proposer of each resolution or amendment
> > - The seconders of each resolution or amendment
> The point of this is to allow voters who do not wish to review
> thousand-message mailing list threads to get a clear summary of the
> issues from all of the relevant sides.  That means that everybody
> relevant must be able to get their statement referenced but also that
> the number of such statements should be kept reasonably small.

How do you define "relevant"? The vote is run because someome proposed a
GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to
them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to
have a link to mail where they explain it.

> Anyone can make themselves a seconder simply by seconding something.
> So in principle this means that anyone who wants to can get their
> position statement referenced.  Surely that can't be what you meant ?

Yes it is. It's also the reason that I don't want it to be on the ballot
itself but only on the vote page, available to people who are looking for
more background information on the proposal.

> Why did I list the Leader, named or overruled Delegates, the TC, and
> the Trusted organisations ?  Because it might be that their decisions
> are being overruled or preempted.  That means that they must have a
> right to be heard, alongside their `accusers' as it were.

It might be that a GR is about my job of administering alioth.d.o. Why am
I not listed ? :-)

Let's simplify and say that any time the GR is about overriding someone's
decision, then the overriden person/team can have a link to their own
position statement. But I don't see a reason to give any blanket
permission for all those parties to have their position statement

> No, I would like the ballot paper to contain links to web pages
> controlled by each of the relevant people.  A digested
> hopefully-coherent position paper, with references and other
> supporting material as the relevant people think appropriate, allows
> each side to do the best job it can of being convincing.  That's quite
> different from getting a link to the middle of some flamewar.

I don't like the fact that the content of the page viewed is under
control of the person and might change during the vote. That's why I
wanted simple archived mails. But those mails should be readable on their
own without needing to read followup or history.

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: