| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 14:46 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:39:05 +0100 |
| 3 |
> "Rob C" <hyakuhei@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > For what its worth, I think option #2 is the best. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I think option #1 is out of the question and I think that #3 is flawed |
| 8 |
> > because the 8th spot developer's situation or commitment to the |
| 9 |
> > project may have changed since the last vote and in any case that |
| 10 |
> > developer would be free to partake in the running vote with #2. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Cheers |
| 13 |
> > -Rob |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Then it should be offered to the 8th person, at which point either |
| 16 |
> he/she will then refuse the nomination and it's offered to the 9th. |
| 17 |
> Rinse and repeat. |
| 18 |
> If we run out of nominees then we'll need another election. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Agreed. #3 |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>From my POV having a new election potentially over and over is a waste |
| 24 |
of time and resources. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives