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