On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov , Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Or did you already remove rank 18?
> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is
> > | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then
> > | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the
> > | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so
> > | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new
> > | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly
> > | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that
> > | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member.
> > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt>
> > So your options are:
> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can.
> > - Follow the rules.
> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for
> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of
> blindly followed.
I agree with that. In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members
is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not
unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for
the missing spot. I think the rules pretty much have it right here.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a
matter for the council members. I'm just saying that rather than hold
the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it.
To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your
and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal. Good idea, put me in the "support"
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)