| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> What would be the rationale for having different rules in the second |
| 5 |
>> election? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place |
| 10 |
>> or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations' |
| 11 |
>> will be the current council. A second period of nominations will |
| 12 |
>> be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of |
| 13 |
>> nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations' |
| 14 |
>> ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Honestly, this seems unclear to me. Does that mean that Council will |
| 17 |
> have less members than 7? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, this is how I would read it, and I think the full log of the |
| 20 |
meeting fully clarifies that this was the intention. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> IIRC the original concern raised at the time was that we didn't want |
| 23 |
> to leave seats empty. Since Trustees can fill the vacancies with their |
| 24 |
> own choices, it made no sense to reject candidates in the second |
| 25 |
> election, and we wanted a fixed number of elections to ensure we can |
| 26 |
> fit them into fixed AGM date. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If Trustees can fill the vacancies, then there's no point in omitting |
| 29 |
_reopen_nominations. They could still pick any candidates from below. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So, I think the procedure as announced by antarus makes sense. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives