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

Re: Q for nominees: structural reforms to delegations



On Thu, 2025-03-20 20:35:01 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2025-03-20 19:35:10)
On Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:04:08 AM Mountain Standard Time Faidon
Liambotis wrote:
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".

I believe the question is if the nominees would be willing to support
the ideas explained in this email.

I feel it is appropriate to ask nominees for the DPL what they think
about specific issues as well as if they would support specific
actions/solutions to problems.

At the time of this writing three people have expressed disapproval of
the email Branden wrote.  I have partially quoted one of them above,
but the sentiments of the others are similar, saying that Branden’s
email was either a waste of their time or inappropriate.  My purpose
with this response is just to say that I had the opposite reaction,
which was his email was both worth my time and appropriate.

I similarly found the implied question from Branden appropriate, and
hereby second the encouragement for the candidates to express their
opinions on the proposed changes.

Of course, silence is also a way to express opinion, but I would find
that a troublesome approach for a candidate for Debian Leader to not
even bother to state an opinion on a matter explicitly put forward in
the context of sheding light on the political views of the candidates.
If, as the non-candidate reactions seem ti indicate, this is a horrible
can of worms that I just happen to be ignorant about, then state that -
no need to open the can if you judge that to be too painful (for you or
for me or whatever).

I agree with Soren and Jonas.

In particular, I find Branden's posts to be very appropriate, informative, and well-prepared.

I also agree with what Branden proposes in his email.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: