On Friday 26 September 2008, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote:
> > > We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this
> > > council started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can
> > > be missed in the next 9 month.
> > >
> > > As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council
> > > (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one)
> > > one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further
> > > meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again:
> >
> > just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a booted
> > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked
> > out. elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original
> > list is a lot simpler.
>
> I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if you
> see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's good
> enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get sick
> etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.

as Jorge points out, that is why the existing council members need to accept 
the new person.  if the remaining 6 are weak, then the council would skip 
over them and we'd be back at the voting step.
-mike