| 1 |
On 13:03 Sat 10 Jan , Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would like to widen the discussion a little. I propose that council |
| 3 |
> members serve for two years, not the current year and that half the |
| 4 |
> seats are contested every year. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This helps ensure a smooth transition from one council to the next and |
| 7 |
> avoids the case where a council near the end of its term decides to |
| 8 |
> 'leave it for the new council' and the new council takes a few months |
| 9 |
> to find its feet. We have seen both cases already. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Council can debate/vote on that any time, or even decide to hold a |
| 12 |
> referendum. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I definitely think we need to hear from more people outside the council |
| 15 |
on this before making any decision. I like the idea of longer terms, and |
| 16 |
at the same time I see solar's point about people getting re-elected. If |
| 17 |
we're staggered, we're constantly getting an influx of new people |
| 18 |
regardless so the continuity is in the re-elected ones. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> To answer your questions directly, I'm not happy with the 'fake person' |
| 21 |
> A democracy gets the leadership it deserves, if there are seven |
| 22 |
> vacanices and only seven candidates, they should be elected unopposed. |
| 23 |
> No vote required. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd rather have 5 people I want in charge than those same 5 people plus |
| 26 |
2 more who are totally unsuitable for council. Gentoo deserves the |
| 27 |
people our community want on the council, and nobody else. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> The 'none of the below' option can force a continuious cycle of |
| 30 |
> nominations/elections |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So? As long as the cycle continues, the current council remains in place. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Donnie |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 39 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 40 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives