From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-3739-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A3713877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA2DEE0A6C;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0D3E0A02
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ij19so5183043vcb.23
        for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        bh=4Tz05UtuSLFPWRxDoenTWtvOZ4eoQuZnOL1h0VQP+qc=;
        b=JPuxO85pYiir6sCM4m2rdtASi9Zk/V6zCk0yCHS3MJTUoIItsuwaYJHexP8UxyhOMh
         QFGxkC7mDAnD4HRn5ph6C8InUzgo1u6r+uqJf4MYLIEIHsFMoZnaxCTH7rUnCNAU0Azo
         c0LcG7I+OSiGkFptnX0sAsTOdwF8gTNNizBC5U9OidWzgiNR/ZmItUmulvcSNLBZAQU6
         JFRVXeFQ8StI32GXzFf42u08WCrxVjD1h++kzDpccAO2+E+wcLSSALk50aFIXjYLnPpJ
         Zsrh+0NTaKpJjjOqDMfpjy2+3YYQAKFi3i9t1izPclgvO45zgyAgfOBHjnJltX1RjICV
         OSig==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.98.143 with SMTP id q15mr1525621vcn.38.1402938406368;
 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1406161657000.10919@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
References: <539BD2E2.7030803@gentoo.org>
	<539E0590.8040600@mailstation.de>
	<CAGfcS_ms6KG3SjrNq93YkR48zdFG-7ubgTSXuzKehLWFk0bCpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1406160527020.6860@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
	<21406.51012.786836.311830@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
	<539EFC58.8060406@gentoo.org>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1406161657000.10919@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:06:46 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sbltymxWOj4GqRmb-CLZNr7sHL4
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kHv8Z9KyyRLvPnxZeDLosKCd60h6d+Jap2uDJdEW45Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council 2014 / 2015 election
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: b356e62e-218d-4256-9810-3ba77d795316
X-Archives-Hash: 1ed75f60fca477a6123f40994bf5fff5

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> To all the others that are upset because everyone is already nominated, I'd
> like to recall everyone if free to nominate. It is custom practice to have
> developers nominated more than once. Before anyone asks, that is also valid
> under the current rules.

So, I brought it up because issues like this are better addressed
before there are misunderstandings than after.

Still, traditionally in the past we've had tables of nominees, whether
they accepted, links to manifestos, etc.  That doesn't work quite as
elegantly when everybody is nominated.

Also, a bulk nomination like this may discourage others from
re-nominating the same individual.  Nominations are as much about
encouraging people to seriously run for office and not just a process.
Otherwise we'd just nominate ourselves.  I don't want somebody who
might not have seriously considered running for council to not
consider doing so because somebody didn't think to nominate them
because technically it was already done.

But, this isn't a big deal either way.  I won't make any assumptions
as to what the full intent of nominating almost everybody was.  Wulf
can say whatever he cares to if he cares to.

So, just about everybody is nominated now, but don't let that
discourage anybody from re-nominating others or running if they think
there is some good they can do.

Rich