Debian Project Leader Candidates' Platforms Online 25
An anonymous reader writes "The platforms for the Debian Project Leader candidates are now available here with more information about how votes are tallied. The candidates this year are the incumbent DPL Martin Michlmayr, and developers Branden Robinson, and Gergely Nagy (but if you vote for him, his tamagotchi will sit on you.)" Nagy's platform is interesting reading.
Re:Martin Michlmayr (Score:5, Informative)
We (as in users) depend on them to provide us with Debian the distribution, and as such they pick the DPL. The parent might see this effort as "nothing" but then again, why fix something that isn't broken? The only main problem with Debian is still the release process, which has been broken for years, some might even argue that it isn't broken at all, I guess it depends on your point of view.
All I know is that I've been using sid for years, and it has served me well, with over thirteen thousand packages working as well as they do, I hardly think anyone from the outside can call Debian anything other than a miraculous success.
Of course, those involved in the process can criticize all they wish, that's probably the reason it works so well in the first place.
Instant Runoff Voting (Score:4, Informative)
-Waldo Jaquith
Re:Martin Michlmayr (Score:1, Informative)
Perhaps you're just not on the right lists. He's pretty active on the -qa list as well as a few others.
This is the typical perspective of a non-DD. They don't give just anyone access to the Debian machines, nor the power to head NM, and the authority to approach (and remove) inactive developers.
Just because someone can port X does not mean they'll make a great leader - Branden and Martin have entirely different approaches and personalities. I, personally, would rather have someone quiet who just does work rather than trying to entertain all of the Debian fanboys out there. But hey, what's amusing about that?
Re:Instant Runoff Voting (Score:5, Informative)
Debian uses the Condorcet voting method, with Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping (SSD) as the tiebreaker method, and some modifications for supermajorities for use when voting on amendments to the Constitution, DFSG, and Social Contract. For people not familiar with Condorcet, the short explanation is that each ballot provides an ranking of the options, from most preferred to least preferred. The winner is the option that is preferred over every other option by a majority of people, meaning that a majority of people ranked that option over each other option.
Condorcet is far fairer than Instant Runoff. For example, Instant Runoff is non-monotonic, meaning that a vote for a candidate can make that candidate lose, and a vote against a candidate can make that candidate win. In addition, Instant Runoff generally eliminates "compromise" third-party candidates, even if they would have been preferable to the winning option. In fact, Instant Runoff Voting is the only option that is worse than the standard Plurality or "First Past the Post" system (one vote per person, most votes wins). This is primarily caused because Instant Runoff only looks at your top choice, and ignores the preferences below that, until your top choice is eliminated. This forces you to vote strategically, instead of honestly.
See electionmethods.org [electionmethods.org] for more information on various voting methods (and some good criteria used to evaluate voting methods). In particular, read their article The Problems with Instant Runoff Voting [electionmethods.org]. For more information on Debian's implementation of Condorcet, see the Debian Constitution [debian.org].
Re:What is Branden going to do with XFree86? (Score:2, Informative)
Over the past year, the work I've been proudest of has been the transition of Debian XFree86 packaging effort from individual-based to team-based.
Re:What is Branden going to do with XFree86? (Score:2, Informative)