| 1 |
On Friday 26 September 2008, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 26 September 2008, Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this |
| 5 |
> > > council started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can |
| 6 |
> > > be missed in the next 9 month. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council |
| 9 |
> > > (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one) |
| 10 |
> > > one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further |
| 11 |
> > > meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > just make the replacement strategies the same. replacement for a booted |
| 14 |
> > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is kicked |
| 15 |
> > out. elections take time and are a hassle. selecting from the original |
| 16 |
> > list is a lot simpler. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the |
| 19 |
> council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if you |
| 20 |
> see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's good |
| 21 |
> enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get sick |
| 22 |
> etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the |
| 23 |
> council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
as Jorge points out, that is why the existing council members need to accept |
| 26 |
the new person. if the remaining 6 are weak, then the council would skip |
| 27 |
over them and we'd be back at the voting step. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives