On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? What if they are in vacation for 2 weeks? So, in fact, what you really want to do is to compare the probability that a DD is AFK for 2 weeks with that that she is AFK for 1 week, and balance that with the inconvenience of having a longer election period. I postulate that these days the project members in the following set: (people who go on vacation for 2 weeks MINUS people who go on vacation for 1 week) INTERSECT people who go on vacation in April is statistically indistinguishable from 0, and it will further decrease over time due to Internet penetration in our lives. But even assuming it's a real problem™, we can use very simple solutions to avoid the problem all together. For instance, we can publish the ballots directly at the end of the nomination period, but only accept signed ballots during the (1-week) voting period. That way the very few people in the above set can cron their way around the problem. If I'm reading the time line right, that would actually *increase* the available vote time window by 3 weeks wrt now (or by 1 week with Lucas' calendar). Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature