1 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
7 |
>> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
8 |
>>> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council |
9 |
>>> meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its |
10 |
>>> term end in September of next year? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> There's no need for us to be so strict. I see no reason why the new |
13 |
>> Council can't have their full year. In fact, I'm so confident in it |
14 |
>> being all fair to give them a full year that I propose we just accept it |
15 |
>> and not bother discussing it further. ;] The previous 2 Councils had |
16 |
>> their 12 meetings, why shouldn't this one? |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>>> 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear |
19 |
>>> schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue |
20 |
>>> doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for |
21 |
>>> the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that |
22 |
>>> the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing |
23 |
>>> council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the |
24 |
>>> nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials |
25 |
>>> be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through |
28 |
>> September. This would have elections done by September 30th, and |
29 |
>> nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for |
30 |
>> nominations and one month for voting. |
31 |
>> |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I agree with you on both points. |
34 |
++ |
35 |
> However, the council still needs to "approve" it as it is a "change of |
36 |
> policy" and so that no one has any doubts / objections later. |
37 |
> I still insist that the election officials should be selected as soon as |
38 |
> the nomination period starts to avoid any delays on the voting - we |
39 |
> should never again enter an election without having election officials. |
40 |
> |
41 |
Agreed, as it leaves Gentoo without a Council for a month, and you could end |
42 |
up with no consistency at all viz date of elections. Stating that the |
43 |
officials must be selected before the nomination process can be started, |
44 |
and that the same deadline applies (one month of nominations, one of |
45 |
voting) seems like good planning. Might as well get the whole process |
46 |
sorted with one vote and move on. |
47 |
|
48 |
I also concur with whoever said Council meeting notifications should be |
49 |
discussed on project (maybe a reply-to project for the notification if it |
50 |
needs to go to dev to ensure everyone sees it) since the discussion is |
51 |
rarely about technical stuff, despite that being most of the work which the |
52 |
Council does. Even for technical matters, the discussions i have seen at |
53 |
least on dev about Council decisions, have always been contentious and |
54 |
veered off into non-technical aspects (which is probably why they're on the |
55 |
Council agenda in the first place.) |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |