-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2008.05.20 22:14, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 22:01 Tue 20 May , Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2008.05.20 21:31, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > 2) Hold a 1-week vote asking all devs whether we should have
> > > elections;
> > A vote about a vote seems like wasting time if you don't get the
> > you want.
> Sure, it's a calculated risk. There's a reasonable chance it will go
> either way, if responses on -project are any indication of the entire
> dev pool. One way saves a lot of time now, the other way just means a
> week of waiting that would probably happen anyway in gearing up for
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
Such a vote would not extend the council term, whichever way it went.
With one outcome, you hold elections now, with the other, in six weeks.
Do it now, you can have a compressed election time frame. A month
at least it did for the trustee election. You get returned for a new 12
month term of office. If nobody stands against you there is no vote,
are returned unopposed.
Wait 6 weeks, then you are into the two month election process.
Provided the current council will all stand for re-election, I would go
for the renewed mandate now. It will avoid the two month protracted
If you go for the vote of confidence and win but only just, what sort
of message does that send ?
My concern is that there will be a low turnout because none of the devs
care very much for the politics of this situation. They are mostly
engineers not managers/politicians. The ones with strong feelings for
process over common sense will vote against, so a vote of no confidence
could be carried by apathy. That's the major risk I see.
I've probably said too much, so I'll stop.
Good luck, whatever you decide.
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
email@example.com mailing list