-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2009.01.08 13:01, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Hi everyone
> Since Cardoe didn't present the paper up to now, I'd like to get the
> discussion started how the voting procedure should look like in the
> So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last
> and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
> Does there always have to be 7 council members? If yes, what should
> happen when we i) don't have enough nominations and/or ii)
> _reopen_nominations is ranked somewhere between rank 1-7 ?
> If not, should there be a minimum? If yes, same questions as above.
> I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> during the next election period.
> ps The results from the 2008b vote are still not on the council page,
> who's going to do that?
> Tiziano Müller
> Gentoo Linux Developer
> Areas of responsibility:
> Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin
> E-Mail : email@example.com
> GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
I would like to widen the discussion a little.
I propose that council members serve for two years, not the current
year and that half the seats are contested every year.
This helps ensure a smooth transition from one council to the next and
avoids the case where a council near the end of its term decides to
'leave it for the new council' and the new council takes a few months
to find its feet. We have seen both cases already.
Council can debate/vote on that any time, or even decide to hold a
To answer your questions directly, I'm not happy with the 'fake person'
A democracy gets the leadership it deserves, if there are seven
vacanices and only seven candidates, they should be elected unopposed.
No vote required.
We could make voting compulsory but that would make a lot of work for
election offcials, chasing slackers. It would force developers to
register their apathy by submitting a valid ballot with all names
ranked equally. The 'none of the below' option can force a continuious
cycle of nominations/elections unless we drop the 'none of the below'
from any second attempt, then its clearly served no useful purpose.
The trustees are currently running with one vacancy and one appointee.
An odd number works best and the appointee serves only until the next
planned election. I'm really suggesting that council looks at what
the Foundation does. I'm not saying its perfect but there may be some
The Foundation trustees cannot have proxies as trustees are legally
responsible for the runing of a legal entity, as directors of a company
and slacker marks make no sense to the trustees either.
I find the idea of proxies undemocratic. They are in effect a councilor
appointed for a short period by a single councilor. Thats not very
democratic now is it?
What whould happen if a council meeting was composed of seven proxies,
is it still representative of the council?
My view is that the coucil is overly cautions about its democratic
practices, sometimes to its detriment and at other times (proxies) the
processes are not democratic at all.
Disclaimer: The views above are my own. They do not represent the
formal position of any project I may be a member of.
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----