Re: Q for nominees: structural reforms to delegations
Branden,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:38:23AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Prompted in part by many years of reflection on the project's strengths
> and weaknesses, I have a slate of recommendations regarding the
> management of delegates under section 8 of the Debian Constitution.[1]
>
> [...]
>
> One can embrace any of the foregoing proposals for any reasons one
> likes. I offer my own rationales below so that people understand why I
> take the trouble to write, but do not ask that anyone hold my views.
Your email is titled "Q for nominees", however in all of its 1,000 words
I struggled to find a single question. As you state in the headings of
the sections I quoted above, they are "a slate of recommendations" and
"proposals".
It sounds like you have a concrete and well-formed view on this matter,
which you've aptly described as a "structural reform". Therefore, I wish
you had nominated yourself for DPL. I believe this would have been a
productive way to contribute and would demonstrate leadership abilities.
It would mean putting your agenda and elaborate thought process under
the necessary scrutiny, and ultimately, to a vote. Conversely, I believe
the project would have benefited from a conclusion (one way or another)
at the end of the voting period.
However, given that you chose to not stand for election, I find it
unfair to ask the people that were gracious and brave enough to run to
rebut your pseudo-platform.
I also find it to be disrespectful of their precious time and attention
as well as our collective time. We, subscribers to this list, are here
in this moment to learn more about the candidates and their vision for
the future. We are not here to read, or discuss, 1,000-word reform
proposals that are not under any kind of vote.
Moreover, I believe your message has the potential of causing harm, by
risking another lengthy debate in a public space, rehashing arguments
that have been already made elsewhere, and stirring a controversy that
could further divide the project and further demotivate and alienate
some of its members. We've seen some of our colleagues disengage from
other spaces in order to maintain their mental health and motivation,
precisely in an attempt to avoid this kind of controversy. Moving it
shortly thereafter to a list where they're more than likely to be
present (and where for the health of the electorate we *want* them to
continue to be present) feels quite inconsiderate to them.
(For what it's worth, I do not intend to debate this, certainly not by
exchanging point-by-point responses and certainly not in debian-vote.)
Respectfully,
Faidon
Reply to: