On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 21:25 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2008.09.26 20:57, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > just make the replacement strategies the same.  replacement for a
> > booted 
> > > slacker is the same for someone who resigns council/Gentoo or is
> > kicked out.  
> > > elections take time and are a hassle.  selecting from the original
> > list is a 
> > > lot simpler.
> > > -mike
> > 
> > 
> > I strongly disagree with this method. People opt to not run for the
> > council when they see what they expect to be a strong council. So if
> > you
> > see you have 8 pretty strong devs and 6 weak ones running. That's 
> > good
> > enough sign to make you decline any nominations. As the people get
> > sick
> > etc this defaulting to the next inline can lead to results of the
> > council which could completely and radically destroy Gentoo.
> > 
> 
> Solar++
> 
> Allow the remaining council members to recruit any dev for the role, if 
> the any dev agrees. Such recruits serve until the next election, when 
> they can stand on their merits.
> 
> It allows the council (if they wish) to appoint someone who complements 
> the remaining members.  It takes a little longer than the 
> 'inheirentence' method but I would expect it to produce a stronger 
> council. 

Is that a good idea either? I'm not feeling it. I like the council idea
mostly but I don't they should be the ones appointing others.