1 |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800 |
2 |
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800 |
6 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov , Torsten Veller wrote: |
9 |
> >> > Or did you already remove rank 18? |
10 |
> >> > |
11 |
> >> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is |
12 |
> >> > | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then |
13 |
> >> > | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the |
14 |
> >> > | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so |
15 |
> >> > | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new |
16 |
> >> > | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly |
17 |
> >> > | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that |
18 |
> >> > | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member. |
19 |
> >> > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt> |
20 |
> >> > |
21 |
> >> > So your options are: |
22 |
> >> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can. |
23 |
> >> > - Follow the rules. |
24 |
> >> |
25 |
> >> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for |
26 |
> >> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of |
27 |
> >> blindly followed. |
28 |
> >> |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > I agree with that. In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members |
31 |
> > is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not |
32 |
> > unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for |
33 |
> > the missing spot. I think the rules pretty much have it right here. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a |
36 |
> > matter for the council members. I'm just saying that rather than hold |
37 |
> > the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> By its very definition our election process tends not to be brief. I |
40 |
> believe the best we have done in the past is 2 weeks of nominations |
41 |
> followed by 2 weeks of voting (previous council vote). Do you propose |
42 |
> something faster or will one month of 6 members be satisfactory? |
43 |
> |
44 |
> -Alec |
45 |
> |
46 |
|
47 |
Is that addressed to me? I'm not sure I understand your question, but |
48 |
by "brief" I just meant Jorge's schedule. All I'm saying is that one |
49 |
way or another we should fill the position, and if Council choose to |
50 |
fill it by holding an election rather than by moving to the next |
51 |
developer on the list, then the schedule is what it is. |
52 |
|
53 |
> > |
54 |
> > To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your |
55 |
> > and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal. Good idea, put me in the "support" |
56 |
> > column. |
57 |
> > |
58 |
> > Regards, |
59 |
> > Ferris |
60 |
> >> -- |
61 |
> >> Thanks, |
62 |
> >> Donnie |
63 |
> >> |
64 |
> >> Donnie Berkholz |
65 |
> >> Developer, Gentoo Linux |
66 |
> >> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > -- |
70 |
> > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
71 |
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |
72 |
> > |
73 |
|
74 |
Regards, |
75 |
Ferris |
76 |
-- |
77 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
78 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |