Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:17:46 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
    Message-ID:  <3D340EEA.CB602B57@hursley.ibm.com>

  | It might. On the other hand, by putting more information into public hands,
  | we might decrease electioneering and attempts to manipulate, simply by
  | making any such actions impossible to conceal.

That the likely targets are known neither makes it more or less likely
that attempts to influence the process would be detected.   It might
make it more likely for them to be attempted.

  | But I think one important aspect of democracy is the [...]

Which has exactly what to do with anything?   There is no democracy
here, nor any intention that there should be.   That's not what the
process is all about.

In case it isn't obvious, I'm in favour of the status quo.   The problem
that fixes is no problem at all, which is the problem that I believe exists
(in this particular area anyway).

For those who believe that some list should be published, it would be
much easier to discuss the proposals, if you could say:

(a) Exactly which set of names should be published (what qualifies a name to be
on the published list).   [Recent messages are getting better at answering
this one than many from the past].

(b) Exactly when the names should be published.

(c) Whether the list should be updated after its initial publication, and
if so, what kinds of updates (additions, deletions), what causes such an
update to occur, and when they are to be made (when a new list would be
published).   (You can ignore the "can't be helped" types of updates here,
including files lost due to malfunctions, and being recreated, or change
under court direction, or ...).

(d) Whether the published list in any way constrains the decisions made by
the nomcom (and if so, how).

Without explicit answers to (at least) those questions, it is impossible
to evaluate the proposals.   Harald's proposal answered all of those
(directly, or by implication) but none of the more recent ones have.

kre