1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 19:40 Sun 16 Nov , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: |
3 |
> > Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running |
4 |
> > in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup |
5 |
> > between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who don't |
6 |
> > (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person filling |
7 |
> > that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when "nobody" |
8 |
> > is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Have a smaller council. The largest number of odd people <=7 that are |
11 |
> ranked above "nobody". There's no reason it has to be 7, and it seems to |
12 |
> me that on a 7-person council, about half end up doing mostly nothing |
13 |
> that's related to being on the council. |
14 |
|
15 |
So we could end up with only 1 council member in the worst case? ;) I |
16 |
don't think that's something we really want. In my opinion we need to |
17 |
have at minimum 5 council members to make sure there's some kind of |
18 |
redundancy plus to get different views and ideas on issues brought up to |
19 |
the council. |
20 |
|
21 |
Tobias |