On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> 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"
column.

Regards,
Ferris
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com


--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)