1 |
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800 |
3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov , Torsten Veller wrote: |
6 |
>> > Or did you already remove rank 18? |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is |
9 |
>> > | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then |
10 |
>> > | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the |
11 |
>> > | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so |
12 |
>> > | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new |
13 |
>> > | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly |
14 |
>> > | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that |
15 |
>> > | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member. |
16 |
>> > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt> |
17 |
>> > |
18 |
>> > So your options are: |
19 |
>> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can. |
20 |
>> > - Follow the rules. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for |
23 |
>> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of |
24 |
>> blindly followed. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I agree with that. In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members |
28 |
> is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not |
29 |
> unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for |
30 |
> the missing spot. I think the rules pretty much have it right here. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a |
33 |
> matter for the council members. I'm just saying that rather than hold |
34 |
> the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it. |
35 |
|
36 |
By its very definition our election process tends not to be brief. I |
37 |
believe the best we have done in the past is 2 weeks of nominations |
38 |
followed by 2 weeks of voting (previous council vote). Do you propose |
39 |
something faster or will one month of 6 members be satisfactory? |
40 |
|
41 |
-Alec |
42 |
|
43 |
> |
44 |
> To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your |
45 |
> and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal. Good idea, put me in the "support" |
46 |
> column. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Regards, |
49 |
> Ferris |
50 |
>> -- |
51 |
>> Thanks, |
52 |
>> Donnie |
53 |
>> |
54 |
>> Donnie Berkholz |
55 |
>> Developer, Gentoo Linux |
56 |
>> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
57 |
> |
58 |
> |
59 |
> -- |
60 |
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
61 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |
62 |
> |