| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 21:25 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 2008.09.26 20:57, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 8 |
> [snip] |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > just make the replacement strategies the same. replacement for a |
| 11 |
> > booted |
| 12 |
> > > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is |
| 13 |
> > kicked out. |
| 14 |
> > > elections take time and are a hassle. selecting from the original |
| 15 |
> > list is a |
| 16 |
> > > lot simpler. |
| 17 |
> > > -mike |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the |
| 21 |
> > council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if |
| 22 |
> > you |
| 23 |
> > see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's |
| 24 |
> > good |
| 25 |
> > enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get |
| 26 |
> > sick |
| 27 |
> > etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the |
| 28 |
> > council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Solar++ |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Allow the remaining council members to recruit any dev for the role, if |
| 34 |
> the any dev agrees. Such recruits serve until the next election, when |
| 35 |
> they can stand on their merits. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> It allows the council (if they wish) to appoint someone who complements |
| 38 |
> the remaining members. It takes a little longer than the |
| 39 |
> 'inheirentence' method but I would expect it to produce a stronger |
| 40 |
> council. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Is that a good idea either? I'm not feeling it. I like the council idea |
| 43 |
mostly but I don't they should be the ones appointing others. |
Archives