Re: [all candidates] vote time?
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> How much time do you think voters should spend reading these discussions?
Enough time to make an informed decision - or throw a dice, whichever
they prefer. Noone's required to read all (or any) of -vote@, it is
entirely up to them how much time they want to spend on it.
Myself, I enjoyed reading -vote@ in the past (and still continue to do
so, albeit answering everything is much harder than reading only,
especially when there's overlap and noise involved too).
> With the benefit of some hindsight, do you feel that you are being
> concise enough to achieve that time?
Yes and no. Yes, because people have the ability to stop reading me
anytime they want. No, becuase my intention is not to shorten the
campaign period. I could do that, by saying "I suck, vote for NoTA over
me!", or just link my platform to every second question, but that would
not really do me anything good (and it would be quite dishonest too).
> Would you change anything about the DPL or GR processes to help achieve that
Once thing that I thought about was a pre-arranged questionnaire for the
candidates: collected the week after platforms are published, before the
campaign period, then posted, with the candidates having a week to
answer. Once answered, further questions are collected and organised
again, and posted in a followup questionnare - you get the idea.
This would eliminate overlapping questions, and would make it easier for
the candidates to answer.
On the other hand, it would be a lot of work, would be terribly boring,
and I'd hate it. So lets not do that. I do like the element of surprise
in our current campaign process.