Hi David, On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 23:30 +0100, David M wrote: > The process sounds reasonable 'in the large' but definitely not in the > detail. *Please* bear in mind that there are people who "don't do IRC"
This is why it has been made a vote on launchpad and not IRC. If the vote had happened on IRC when it was scheduled to on Sunday 23rd there would have been about 10 or so people voting. Hardly democratic I'm sure you'll agree when there are over 250 people in the team (according to launchpad). So it was decided (as most people didn't turn up [probably because they didn't realise they needed to]) by those people who _did_ turn up that "something should be done". The mail you saw was the result of a discussion between a number of interested parties. > and also that there are people who might well do IRC but aren't able to > participate in a particular meeting for various reasons. It's not on for > a self-selecting few to present /faits accomplis/ with no further chance > for dialog, discussion or amendment. > The subject of the process for voting in a new Leader/Point Of Contact for the LoCo has been brought up (by myself) at multiple meetings in the past but it has either not been discussed or postponed for one reason or another. Now we are in a situation where the present leader has stepped down and we are looking for a new leader with no process in place to deal with that. > Although I am sure (I hope?) it is not intended as such, the proposed > timescale looks very much like an undemocratic attempt to steamroller > something through at high-speed (must be a rocket-propelled steamroller) > in a ludicrously short timescale, and DOES NOT allow due time for > community members to organise themselves not only to stand as > candidates, but to participate in the voting process. > Well. What actually happened was that it was suggested in the meeting on IRC and subsequently on the list last week that the vote should happen on Sunday 23rd, but as not many people turned up on Sunday 23rd it seemed unfair to hold the vote then. > I would strongly urge a rethinking of the timescale involved. > > That's a mere two days away! Many people won't have even read this > message until sometime tomorrow, possibly even later, giving even less > time to respond. > There have _already_ been mails asking for people to step up and add themselves to the wiki to put themselves forward. This isn't the first mail to mention it. There has been over a week to do this. We merely decided to extend the period to give a couple more days for any extra stragglers to add (or remove) themselves. > I would suggest that a week should be a minimum turnaround time for such > things. I'm sure there is nothing so vitally pressing that it can't wait > a few days longer and in doing so, being more accountable and > democratic. > There already was a week - between the date of the last meeting (16th Sept) and the date of the proposed vote (23rd Sept). It's now 1 week and 3 days. With a few days of voting at the end of the week. A GB general election (which some would consider is more important) gets the vote over and done with in a day for most people. Can we not cope with a few days voting I wonder? > > > The poll will be open for voting by Ubuntu-UK members registered with > > the launchpad Ubuntu-UK team https://launchpad.net/%7Eubuntu-uk from > > 0:00 Thursday 28th September 2007 until 21:00 Sunday 30th September > > 2007. > > Again, that's too short a time. A week should be allowed for voting. > (And why stop at 21:00, rather than 23:59? Or are people who check their > email in the evening to be disbarred from participation?) > Why not 03:00, are people who check their email late at night disbarred from participation? Past experience tells me that whatever scheme is concocted, *someone* will object. I am not trying to belittle your objections, I can see valid arguments in your points, but please don't think that this was done maliciously, with intent to skew votes. It was merely done to get it over and done with promptly and efficiently without a lengthy drawn out protracted discussion. > Remember, not everybody necessarily checks their personal email every > day. Not everybody necessarily has the ability to respond 'instantly' > when there are other pressures on their time. And not least, shocking as > it may be to some, sometimes people are just away from the computer for > a few days.. > Indeed. I was on holiday with near-zero net connectivity when the meeting took place on the 16th September. I only knew that there was going to be a vote within one week when I happened to be able to get some bandwidth and saw a mail sent directly to me (not a mailing list mail). So I appreciate this point. > Using Launchpad as a voting platform seems reasonable apart from one > thing: how do we identify and authenticate voters? You need a launchpad ID and membership of the ubuntu-uk team. The actual votes will be anonymous however. There is NO way to figure out who voted for whom. > I am sure there is > nothing to prevent malcontents (NB: not me, I may grumble, but I am not > dishonest) from setting up sockpuppet accounts and skewing the > results..? :-( > Lets see how many new registrants to launchpad (and indeed existing launchpad registrants) join the ubuntu-uk team in the next couple of days and then vote shall we :) Whatever process we put in place can be scrutinised to the nth degree. People can poke and prod it and find holes. Other ways and means have been suggested, but on the whole launchpad seems to be the best way. It is (for example) how new members of the Ubuntu Community Council were voted in. If it's good enough for the top level of our process management I'd say it's good enough for us! Cheers, Al.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
