| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:01 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jan 29 2007, 09:50:28AM CST] |
| 3 |
> > > Then it should be offered to the 8th person, at which point either |
| 4 |
> > > he/she will then refuse the nomination and it's offered to the 9th. |
| 5 |
> > > Rinse and repeat. |
| 6 |
> > > If we run out of nominees then we'll need another election. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Agreed. #3 |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > >From my POV having a new election potentially over and over is a waste |
| 12 |
> > of time and resources. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> My only qualm with this approach is whether or not we then risk |
| 15 |
> promoting a candidate who was resoundingly defeated during the actual |
| 16 |
> election to a Council position because only a handful of people ran for |
| 17 |
> the position. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Don't we have a "re-open nominations" item in our electoral process? If |
| 20 |
so, we can decide to consider only candidates who are above that |
| 21 |
threshold. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Olivier Crête |
| 25 |
tester@g.o |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives