-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:04:58 +0100
> Torsten Veller <email@example.com> wrote:
>> * Donnie Berkholz <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a
>>> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and
>>> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than
>>> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the
>>> bottom half of candidates.
>> The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates.
Donnie is talking here about the relative votes each candidate received
and not about the rank of a candidate in relation to others.
>> This is the ranked list:
>> | 1 dberkholz
>> | 2 Halcy0n
>> | 3 Flameeyes
>> | 4 Betelgeuse
>> | 5 lu_zero
>> | 6 Jokey
>> | 7 dertobi123
>> | 8 cardoe
>> | 9 dev-zero
>> | 10 leio
>> | 11 welp
>> | 12 fmccor
>> | 13 ulm
>> | 14 jer
>> | 15 hkBst
>> | 16 astinus
>> | 17 ferdy peper
>> | 18 zlin
>> What is the bottom half?
>> By ranks:
>> 1-9 is the first half, and 10-18 the second.
>> Or did you already remove rank 18?
It doesn't matter if there were 18, 15 or 100 candidates in the ballot.
What matters is the distribution of votes.
>> | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
>> | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
>> | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
>> | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
>> | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
>> | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
>> | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that
>> | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
>> So your options are:
>> - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
>> - Follow the rules.
> Based on that, it looks like the alternative to moving further down the
> list is to hold an election for the open spot. That seems more
> reasonable than leaving it open because the next election is several
> months away. And something might come along that needs a tie breaker
I agree with Ferris. This election could be done with the "reduced"
timelines (that we should really start considering as the default
timelines) of 15 days to nominate + 15 days to vote.
> By the way, the final ranking only shows an ordering by preference. It
> does not say anything about whether or not the developer community
> would not want any of these candidates as council members.
> While we are at it, please remove my name from the list no matter how
> this gets decided. As a trustee, I am now not allowed to sit on Council
there's no need to remove your name from the list or anyone else's for
the matter. Those were the names in the ballot and the order of the
votes, if we are (were?) to move down the list, we would need to check
whether the next person would still qualify as a council member or not.
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <email@example.com>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----