On 05/24/2011 04:54 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 21.5.2011 15:03, Diego Elio Pettenò napsal(a):
>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>> control
>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
> Ok, if you guys want new elections lets do it properly :)
> 
> I propose this timetable:
> 27.5. Nominations close - We have the list, new thread is started
> 3.6. Voting close - New lead selected
> 
> Voting will happen over this ML where there will be new mail thread
> containing names of all candidates to which each developer is supposed
> to reply.
> 
> Where QA team size will be determined based on people who bothered to
> vote. If a member decide not to vote he will be removed from the QA team
> for inactivity (something like mandatory voting).
> 
> And also i accept the nomination.
> 
> Tomas

Still the same as last time, Diego.

The bug didn't change my mind. I like both of you guys and also I kinda
understand both of you, I like your work etc. but I also still think
that Diego is a good QA lead. I simply excluded the bug of my mind for
this vote.

So the current situation (positions/people) are still fine to me.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8