Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Douglas Andrade wrote:
> On 6/1/06, leslie.polzer@...
> > As for the TU election process -- yes, it should most likely be
> > revised. But who's going to do it? With the majority not interested in
> > any debate, how can anything productive happen?
> In fact, it does not happen.
If we want more discussion, we need to first focus on the voting
participation. Although some people voted no without any discussion, at
least they voted. We could go back at the last votes and I'm pretty sure
some active TU didn't voted. Some names would probably come up several
times. When we updated the list of TU for the last bylaw vote, it was
discovered that a TU didn't even had his voting permission for the forum
and he never asked for it! If there is a group of TU who don't even
bother to vote, how can we expect them to participate in discussion?
IMHO, we should start by making sure that every active TU votes.
Perhaps, we should send warnings (or kick them out?) to TU who don't do
their voting duties.
> > Here's a draft anyway: a sponsoring person and a discussion period of
> > a few days should be required.
> Yep. Inspired by your ideas, i propose a irc meeting with the TUs, so
> they can ask the tu-wannabe some questions reguarding AUR, package
> making, experience and so on.
> That is a good way to know the tu-wannabe and know his/her current
> skills and in this time you can discover something about the
> tu-wannabe personality by the way he/she answer the questions.
> It may look intrusive, but imho, it is a good way to know at least
> something about the tu-wannabe.
I would keep the voting process as is, for now. Let's hope that the
current discussion has highlighted the importance of the discussion
period and that on the next vote there will be a real discussion. If the
same issue repeats itself, then we'll think about possible changes.
The irc meeting won't change anything. Asking questions, etc can be done
via the ML. If someone don't want to discuss on the ML, he won't discuss
it in irc. The irc would be more trouble because everyone is in a
different timezone and has different schedule.
On a second thought, an informal irc meeting might be a nice addition to
the ML as it's more interactive. If the TU candidate want to have one, I
don't see any problem. The log could be make available to the ML.
> >, but that's all. Maybe give everyone a
> > veto right that they should use very sparingly. If a person breaks stuff
> > on purpose, he should be removed from the team.
The veto right won't work, IMO. There is too many persons. Reaching an
unanimous agreement would nearly be impossible. Usually, in situations
where there is a veto, only one or a few persons have the veto.
> Yeah, but how to tell when things broke on purpose ? I think that is
> not a easy thing to tell/discover.
Sure, it's hard to tell. However, if it happens too often, we could
question that TU technical skills.
BTW, if people don't want to discuss, there's not much we can do. Maybe
making the votes not anonymous anymore or asking TU to explain their
voted. But if we're too strict, TU would stop voting or quit the TU team
and we wouldn't be more advanced.
Perhaps, keeping an open and friendly environnemnt on the ML so people are
comfortable to bring in delicate matters would solve the problem. :)
> tur-users mailing list
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.