Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:40 Sun 16 Nov     , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> > Count me in as well for that idea. Having that "nobody" person running
> > in the election allows us to have a clear and comprehensible breakup
> > between those candidates who could easily fill a gap and those who don't
> > (and therefore when it's time to hold an election for a person filling
> > that gap). It still leaves one question open: What to do when "nobody"
> > is elected on the 5th or 6th position (or even the 1st ...)?
> 
> Have a smaller council. The largest number of odd people <=7 that are 
> ranked above "nobody". There's no reason it has to be 7, and it seems to 
> me that on a 7-person council, about half end up doing mostly nothing 
> that's related to being on the council.

So we could end up with only 1 council member in the worst case? ;) I
don't think that's something we really want. In my opinion we need to
have at minimum 5 council members to make sure there's some kind of
redundancy plus to get different views and ideas on issues brought up to
the council.

  Tobias