1 |
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:42 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
<snip> |
8 |
|
9 |
> >> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]: |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place |
12 |
> >> or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations' |
13 |
> >> will be the current council. A second period of nominations will |
14 |
> >> be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of |
15 |
> >> nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations' |
16 |
> >> ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> > Honestly, this seems unclear to me. Does that mean that Council will |
19 |
> > have less members than 7? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Yes, this is how I would read it, and I think the full log of the |
22 |
> meeting fully clarifies that this was the intention. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
This is what was approved "back then". The intention was to leave those |
26 |
candidates that ranked below _reopen_nominations out of the Council, even |
27 |
if that caused the Council to have less than 7 members. |
28 |
The 2nd election period was meant to provide an opportunity for new |
29 |
candidates to come forward or for the electorate to rethink their vote. |
30 |
AFAIK, the Trustees have always argued that we should not reduce the number |
31 |
of members in the Board. |
32 |
|
33 |
Regards, |
34 |
Jorge |