| 1 |
On 2018.04.16 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
> Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up |
| 5 |
> filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some |
| 6 |
> benefits: |
| 7 |
> 1. The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the |
| 8 |
> bylaws, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
True. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> allowing for somebody with more support to replace them. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Perhaps. If these 'somebodies' were interested. They would already |
| 15 |
be standing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 2. The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which |
| 18 |
> Trustees have a mandate. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That's if the 'rejected' candidates are will accept an appointment |
| 21 |
after being rejected. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As for visibility, its a perennial problem. Look at the years when |
| 24 |
no vote is held and nominees are elected unopposed. |
| 25 |
That illustrates both the problem and lack of interest in the posts. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
_reopen_nominations will not magically make more candidates |
| 28 |
come forward and may have the undesired side effect of |
| 29 |
making things worse, not better. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> Rich |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Roy Bamford |
| 40 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 41 |
elections |
| 42 |
gentoo-ops |
| 43 |
forum-mods |
Archives