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 1L1leQ-0005Ty-W4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:43:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDA85E033C; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4169E034B for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-98-246-79-112.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.246.79.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DB464475; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:43:08 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Tobias Scherbaum Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Stepping back from council duties Message-ID: <20081116174308.GG23210@comet> References: <491EF351.8040200@gentoo.org> <20081116060043.GD23210@comet> <1226854089.3922.15.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qxfKREH7IwbezJ+T" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1226854089.3922.15.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 73381aa3-94df-46ea-9062-f7dbdff471b5 X-Archives-Hash: b1e9ccef068357a6064e93a17b8ec151 --qxfKREH7IwbezJ+T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17:48 Sun 16 Nov , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > If we use this as a criteria for example amne wouldn't have been a > member of the 2007 council - also it would be discuss-worthy if Cardoe > and myself are eligible members for the 2008 council using that > criteria ... I think that criteria simply doesn't work. It's a criterium that only really makes sense with a field of candidates=20 that is more than 2*(# of council spots) along with my additional=20 interpretation that people far below the 7th person are not desired on=20 the council. We additionally know that other people chose not to=20 nominate themselves because they thought that enough good potential=20 members were running. In the general case, you're right. If the election officials had done as Ciaran and I suggested more than=20 once, this wouldn't be a problem. That was to include a "nobody"=20 candidate. Anyone ranked below that would not be eligible for a council=20 position. So I again strongly advise that this be done in the future. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --qxfKREH7IwbezJ+T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkkgW6wACgkQXVaO67S1rts0eQCfdkqQKQ1WHZ3IWx43nb0WvCso 9VsAoMg0M9fyHmVO8g7hBQwZASCItkaM =+b2+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qxfKREH7IwbezJ+T--