From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L1jus-0002XM-GE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:52:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2225E02BF; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay07.ispgateway.de (smtprelay07.ispgateway.de [80.67.29.7]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ED5E02BF for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.224.158.178] (helo=arkane.local) by smtprelay07.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1L1juq-0003M8-1Q for gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:52:00 +0100 Received: by arkane.local (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC0B9A2D1; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:51:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:51:27 +0100 From: Torsten Veller To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties Message-ID: <20081116163026.TAc3d83.tv@veller.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org References: <491EF351.8040200@gentoo.org> <20081116060043.GD23210@comet> <20081116124154.TA6c518.tv@veller.net> <20081116133638.665e5988@anaconda.krait.us> <492023FB.8050705@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <492023FB.8050705@gentoo.org> Jabber-ID: tove@jabber.ccc.de X-PGP-Fingerprint: 0416 3C11 8D79 65B9 AAD0 2065 BBC7 14D1 9C67 CD96 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-10-30) X-Df-Sender: 1067115 X-Archives-Salt: f23d15e7-1e86-4fd2-b5fc-0a3bdd2c8c9c X-Archives-Hash: fa90dc4ce3a2b3b2e715626c2e358eea * "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" : > Ferris McCormick wrote: > > Torsten Veller wrote: > >> * Donnie Berkholz : > >>> Since Cardoe was the last person from the council vote with a > >>> distribution that's anywhere between "more positive than negative" and > >>> "even", I suggest that we leave the remaining spot open rather than > >>> filling it with someone who the majority of developers ranked in the > >>> bottom half of candidates. > >> The "bottom half" depends somehow on the number of candidates. > > Donnie is talking here about the relative votes each candidate received > and not about the rank of a candidate in relation to others. [...] > It doesn't matter if there were 18, 15 or 100 candidates in the ballot. > What matters is the distribution of votes. We can't vote for "reelection". If one says "Dev A" is a better council candidate than "Dev B" it doesn't mean that "Dev B" is not a good council candidate. | # # # | # # # | # # # # | # # # # |# ## # # # # |# ## # # # # |# ## # # # # |# ##### # ## ## |## ##### # ## ## |######## ######### |######## ######### |######## ######### |################## |################## +------------------- So how would you backup the claim about "relative votes" and "ranked in the bottom half of candidates"? Jorge, or any other election official, can you explain why the master ballot contains 145 ballots and council-2008-results.txt says: "We received 143 valid votes and two invalid (two people who forgot to issue votify --submit)."