On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 14:38 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 15:18 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 13:08 -0700, Steve Dibb wrote:
> > > Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Now taking nominations....
> > > 
> > > I'm going to nominate:
> > > 
> > > Steve Dibb (beandog), that's me, and assuming I can nominate myself,
> > > and Alec Warner (antarus) even though he already nominated himself, I 
> > > was going to anyway.
> > 
> > I was going to nominate myself, but Alec beat me to it :)
> 
> Speaking of self-nominations, I'd like to propose that we make a rule
> that people cannot self-nominate.  Personally, I find it a bit tacky.
> Besides, if you can't get even one other person to nominate you, how
> would you expect to actually win?  ;]

For council stuff sure. But foundation I think is a bit different. It's
less of an assumption to assume one might want to be on the council.
Than a trustee on the foundation. Given that most all are around for
technical reasons, not organizational. Much less legal and liable.

Plus with the past lack of nominees, or those even running. Can't see
why we would limit the pool. As stated, if they aren't known either way.
Not to likely to get voted for. So doesn't really hurt things to allow
them. No cost in adding another name to the ballot.

Not to mention would we want to encourage say, me going and asking
someone else to nominate me just to be formal. That's an easy way around
a technicality of no self-nominations. I considered that as well, but
was nominated before it was an issue. :)

I think either way things would work themselves. Possibly even for the
council. But it's not a huge deal, can live with either way.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java