| 1 |
* Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov , Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is |
| 4 |
> > | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then |
| 5 |
> > | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the |
| 6 |
> > | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so |
| 7 |
> > | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new |
| 8 |
> > | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly |
| 9 |
> > | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that |
| 10 |
> > | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member. |
| 11 |
> > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So your options are: |
| 14 |
> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can. |
| 15 |
> > - Follow the rules. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for |
| 18 |
> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of |
| 19 |
> blindly followed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That looks like a topic for today's council meeting, doesn't it? |
Archives