1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 16/06/14 06:30 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
8 |
>>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Wulf C. Krueger |
9 |
>>> <wk@×××××××××××.de> wrote: |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> For good measure, I'd like to nominate these guys: |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> To avoid any "legal technicalities" do these nominations |
14 |
>>> actually count? The announcement said "anyone can nominate" |
15 |
>>> but I'm not sure if this was intended to be limited to current |
16 |
>>> devs. I don't think it really matters since devs can always |
17 |
>>> nominate themselves, but I'd hate to see somebody accept and |
18 |
>>> then get called out on it. |
19 |
> |
20 |
>> Our rules are very clear: anyone can nominate and it's ok to |
21 |
>> nominate oneself. However, they also state that nominations must |
22 |
>> be accepted. So only the nominees that accept will be running for |
23 |
>> the election. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Right, anyone can nominate. However, if someone is nominating |
26 |
> everyone who is eligible (with the exception of one developer), |
27 |
> then I would see this as a clear abuse of the rule. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> So, to make sure if I understand this right, you do consider these |
30 |
> nominations as valid? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Ulrich |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
It is permitted, though, right? |
37 |
|
38 |
I think in terms of expediency, however, we should take an "opt-in" |
39 |
approach, that is only those who want to run should post acceptances |
40 |
and otherwise we don't worry about/require/recommend posting/seek |
41 |
declinations. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
45 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
46 |
|
47 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlOe/FgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPClwQD/cmsXVOnQHBB1MCQf6fY6GuET |
48 |
BXA7cJFUX+GvNT3ccwwA/RpsIX1f8hl/qtU9eGsIT6IgDRWkkvDhKHRmpBZiW2UL |
49 |
=V5Bn |
50 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |