| 1 |
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 16/06/14 06:30 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> Right, anyone can nominate. However, if someone is nominating |
| 9 |
>> everyone who is eligible (with the exception of one developer), |
| 10 |
>> then I would see this as a clear abuse of the rule. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> So, to make sure if I understand this right, you do consider these |
| 13 |
>> nominations as valid? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Ulrich |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It is permitted, though, right? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think in terms of expediency, however, we should take an "opt-in" |
| 22 |
> approach, that is only those who want to run should post acceptances |
| 23 |
> and otherwise we don't worry about/require/recommend posting/seek |
| 24 |
> declinations. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The rules already state that anyone that wants to run for an election |
| 27 |
needs to accept the nomination. |
| 28 |
So, I'd kindly like to ask everyone to stop arguing about Wulf's email and |
| 29 |
only those that wish to run to accept the nomination. If you don't want to |
| 30 |
accept the nomination, don't do anything, when the nomination period |
| 31 |
finishes, we'll consider that as refusal to accept the nomination. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
To all the others that are upset because everyone is already nominated, |
| 34 |
I'd like to recall everyone if free to nominate. It is custom practice to |
| 35 |
have developers nominated more than once. Before anyone asks, that is |
| 36 |
also valid under the current rules. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlOe/FgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPClwQD/cmsXVOnQHBB1MCQf6fY6GuET |
| 42 |
> BXA7cJFUX+GvNT3ccwwA/RpsIX1f8hl/qtU9eGsIT6IgDRWkkvDhKHRmpBZiW2UL |
| 43 |
> =V5Bn |
| 44 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Regards, |
| 47 |
Jorge |
Archives