Re: [gentoo-dev] Topic for Feb council meeting

[Rob C]

For what its worth, I think option #2 is the best.

I think option #1 is out of the question and I think that #3 is flawed
because the 8th spot developer's situation or commitment to the project may
have changed since the last vote and in any case that developer would be
free to partake in the running vote with #2.

Cheers
-Rob

On 29/01/07, Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:24:49PM -0800, Mike Doty wrote:
> > 1.  re-elect a whole new council.
>
> Seems to be overkill to me.
>
> > 2.  elect a new member at a reduced term to fill the vacancy.
>
> Personally i'd rather go with #3, but the GLEP also states:
> > If a council member who has been marked a slacker misses any further
> > meeting (or their appointed proxy doesn't show up), they lose their
> > position and a new election is held to replace that person. The newly
> > elected council member gets a 'reduced' term so that the yearly
> > elections still elect a full group.
>
> Seems to be the closest case to a member simply resigning with the
> slacker regulation.
>
> > 3.  take the 8th spot from the last election.
>
> Seems to be the best - and least complicated - version to me.
>
> 4. The position stays empty until the next election (As long the
>    number of council members doesn't drop below a certain number,
>    let's say 5.
>
> Just adding this as it may be an option, too.
>
> > The spirit of the GLEP would indicate option 2, but it's never spelled
> > out.  Speak out now if you have a opinion on the subject.
>
> Agreed, personally i'd go with #2.
>
> cheers,
>         Wernfried
>
> --
> Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
> Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
> IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
>
>
>


-- 
/**
  * Gentoo Forensics Team
  * GPG : 0x2217D168
  */