From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560E21382C5 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C5AFE09A1; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446C1E09A1 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:39:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a2so10476889pff.8 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:39:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=36LkWuuD64z4iptVsPG1ku5k3anb0fQh0xkzi78AxBA=; b=fjPDG2ha1/mmXR5LiIcgUvzl8UBwvagBqVg1oXP1OCWoVXUFPzcu5hfG+i228Rmz0I SYktA4777QyvYXugdnZHXehkIQZDkmHPiW9L+01a+vSt/stC2WcWQS4Kkj8Tzq7KL3/q bOtUccYtfge1h0uVpD9i81zzgwwgnofMOTYffhZn+ZtAH2ij9MR9zKy5PVvTPEUwB7up HeqyaJUCRTHBiT5/LlBwLx3/u7mx9wuJJkSsyRQs+dDCR5dF1LX+HArygYjplRztgvxH XT6GRkIDcXxF9zFWEpid4dCRdGPzxbSn24iMzpLnaIaeHF/3wVf/qMeQuYm0WJZPP5oS 1apg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=36LkWuuD64z4iptVsPG1ku5k3anb0fQh0xkzi78AxBA=; b=L0BSGbJ7fo6jJuGfHzt4yDTXrlUJi8tZgZMyMH3W2r/4SkvxpvAYpoLEwdo8BMVnRo B17t5CbTpE3g32Nib2OxNSYn/SQuDcW/c86G2NjYvm7NPGwEcQIVvrmpUar1cpbp+dIG IdMSyQmANFtGfvY9uh3Qhd4yub3J0P0Ny6KeY5zC12i8hEKw1x2hqE2QhjGD+zhR7auT aypDd4oMVlt2mSTf6cg898U4XzAV4ZBH1AZWO7mFkk/jg9sFAdtBhCd0VyLUrEYVCxzE qEFKNSLP4GYGd9pPe2TH/PCN9/DnqoeJ7I7haURmmxK8JgbSsXtFT+tEnlANijY/+Fd4 F9uA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCktEN6NoOwh8TfqhMMQx+O50jZ/ltAWjmfeknwO+LPdN+XQxiG kwZirRWh7M66kz8oD7UXD3MTZAriBTrAbhHrpESO2S3a X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+m+wmFrzPBMbSZgR4BmS/OjpCAyaODbpoS1iSzAocN/UfAqaitHdWhGj5D2Dx4Cn/XyhAizGMA2mx9vhKLAoc= X-Received: by 10.99.112.93 with SMTP id a29mr9405562pgn.202.1523882396604; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.174.22 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:39:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6B6Jw6ul7Z6uL6MxyyFJSa@gNgYKVeQDvKSdo0Ifu1SU> References: <20180416014013.yn3ves6bz7avfvqp@gentoo.org> <6B6Jw6ul7Z6uL6MxyyFJSa@gNgYKVeQDvKSdo0Ifu1SU> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:39:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: esCgNMozx4gGqGKVHCwr2VZtuRw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 60b897a1-f7ea-4190-b425-c7e2a4076b73 X-Archives-Hash: 4346c5bd55c45064ef5309b3c9ee2aed On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: > > The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone > wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election > rerun. > Council members who leave office for whatever reason cannot be freely replaced by vote of the remaining Council. Instead the replacement is whoever is next in line by vote. The concept of the _reopen_nominations slot is to designate that people below that slot cannot be used as replacements, and instead a new election has to be held. And of course during the original election if not enough candidates beat _reopen_nominations then less than a full set of Council members are elected, and then another election is held. This would presumably be repeated indefinitely until enough people win one way or another. There is no way provided for a Council member to take office without being elected in above _reopen_nominations. > Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by > _reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership > or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place? In the last two years a grand total of 2 people ran for Trustee positions without ending up a Trustee. In contrast, in the same period a total of 12 people run for Council positions without serving on the Council in that year. This is despite the fact that the Trustees only had to fill 6 slots while the Council had to fill 14 in the same period of time. Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some benefits: 1. The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the bylaws, allowing for somebody with more support to replace them. 2. The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which Trustees have a mandate. -- Rich