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 1L1oLu-0003JO-Bm for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:36:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30383E03B6; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.246]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6F8E03B6 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d40so944924and.1 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.136.18 with SMTP id j18mr1313650and.153.1226867773084; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.94.12 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:36:13 -0800 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: "Ferris McCormick" Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Stepping back from council duties Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo@fmccor.us In-Reply-To: <20081116182110.6d1295ac@anaconda.krait.us> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <491EF351.8040200@gentoo.org> <20081116060043.GD23210@comet> <20081116124154.TA6c518.tv@veller.net> <20081116175546.GH23210@comet> <20081116182110.6d1295ac@anaconda.krait.us> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5aa52dfd95537322 X-Archives-Salt: 5a568988-196f-4593-9c45-a538427b1041 X-Archives-Hash: 293d33b99733fe7e9c55097a18a2b303 On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ferris McCormick wrote: > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:55:46 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> On 13:04 Sun 16 Nov , Torsten Veller wrote: >> > Or did you already remove rank 18? >> > >> > | * Whenever a member of the Council loses their position (the reason is >> > | irrelevant; they could be booted for slacking or they resign or ...), then >> > | the next person in line from the previous Council election is offered the >> > | position. If they decline, it is offered to the next person in line, and so >> > | forth. If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new >> > | person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly >> > | elections still elect a full group. If the Council does not accept that >> > | person, then a new election is held to choose a new member. >> > >> > >> > So your options are: >> > - Change the rules once again. Because you can. >> > - Follow the rules. >> >> Try thinking about this from a different perspective: What is best for >> Gentoo? If the rules are broken, they should get fixed instead of >> blindly followed. >> > > I agree with that. In this case, it seems to me that 7 council members > is better for Gentoo than 6, and if the Council members do not > unanimously accept anyone down the list, then just hold an election for > the missing spot. I think the rules pretty much have it right here. > > I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your analysis, as that is a > matter for the council members. I'm just saying that rather than hold > the position open, just hold a brief election to fill it. By its very definition our election process tends not to be brief. I believe the best we have done in the past is 2 weeks of nominations followed by 2 weeks of voting (previous council vote). Do you propose something faster or will one month of 6 members be satisfactory? -Alec > > To save some virtual trees, I'll respond to your other email about your > and Ciaran's "nobody" proposal. Good idea, put me in the "support" > column. > > Regards, > Ferris >> -- >> Thanks, >> Donnie >> >> Donnie Berkholz >> Developer, Gentoo Linux >> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com > > > -- > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) >