1 |
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 14:38 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 15:18 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 13:08 -0700, Steve Dibb wrote: |
4 |
> > > Grant Goodyear wrote: |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > > Now taking nominations.... |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > I'm going to nominate: |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > Steve Dibb (beandog), that's me, and assuming I can nominate myself, |
11 |
> > > and Alec Warner (antarus) even though he already nominated himself, I |
12 |
> > > was going to anyway. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I was going to nominate myself, but Alec beat me to it :) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Speaking of self-nominations, I'd like to propose that we make a rule |
17 |
> that people cannot self-nominate. Personally, I find it a bit tacky. |
18 |
> Besides, if you can't get even one other person to nominate you, how |
19 |
> would you expect to actually win? ;] |
20 |
|
21 |
For council stuff sure. But foundation I think is a bit different. It's |
22 |
less of an assumption to assume one might want to be on the council. |
23 |
Than a trustee on the foundation. Given that most all are around for |
24 |
technical reasons, not organizational. Much less legal and liable. |
25 |
|
26 |
Plus with the past lack of nominees, or those even running. Can't see |
27 |
why we would limit the pool. As stated, if they aren't known either way. |
28 |
Not to likely to get voted for. So doesn't really hurt things to allow |
29 |
them. No cost in adding another name to the ballot. |
30 |
|
31 |
Not to mention would we want to encourage say, me going and asking |
32 |
someone else to nominate me just to be formal. That's an easy way around |
33 |
a technicality of no self-nominations. I considered that as well, but |
34 |
was nominated before it was an issue. :) |
35 |
|
36 |
I think either way things would work themselves. Possibly even for the |
37 |
council. But it's not a huge deal, can live with either way. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
41 |
Gentoo/amd64/Java |