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.
> -mike


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.