| 1 |
В Птн, 26/09/2008 в 09:51 +0200, Torsten Veller пишет: |
| 2 |
> As you know the by GLEP 39 council members are marked as slacker if they |
| 3 |
> (or their proxy) fail to show up for two consecutive meetings. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> lu_zero wasn't there for the second time in a row. If we follow GLPE 39 |
| 6 |
> he'll get the slacker mark. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This should be done because we follow what was stated by us (or those |
| 9 |
who were before us and we kept silence). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> We should clearify the "new election" part in time. I think this council |
| 12 |
> started in July 2008 and there will be many meetings that can be missed |
| 13 |
> in the next 9 month. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> As there is already a replacement strategy for devs leaving the council |
| 16 |
> (take the next ranked candidate if the council agrees, else elect one) |
| 17 |
> one might think to use the same for a slacker missing any further |
| 18 |
> meeting. But that doesn't work as the slacker can be elected again: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> "Council members who have previously been booted for excessive slacking |
| 21 |
> may stand for future elections, including the election for their |
| 22 |
> replacement. They should, however, justify their slackerness, and should |
| 23 |
> expect to have it pointed out if they don't do so themselves." |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ideas? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Why all council should be responsible for one? If council member fails |
| 28 |
to find time to get to meetings then it's good for all if he leaves |
| 29 |
council, but I don't see any reason to call new global vote. So it's |
| 30 |
better to modify GLEP 39 and state that such council member should be |
| 31 |
replaced using default replacement strategy, and could be elected again |
| 32 |
(drop part elections about slackerness). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Peter. |
Archives