[gentoo-project] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[gentoo-project] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Alec Warner]

Greetings,

Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
want to have a board of 4 people[0].

All times and dates UTC.
The nomination period begins now and lasts for 7 days (through the end
of Aug 30 2021.)
Voting begins Sept 1 2021 and ends Sept 8 2021.

Thanks,

-A

[0] If the members keep voting to reopen_nominations it will cause the
seat to be vacant and the board can fill the seat at their pleasure or
keep it empty. We are basically saying we will fill it; we do not want
an empty seat.

[gentoo-project] Re: Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Alec Warner]

I nominate alicef

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:11 PM Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
> and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
> reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
> will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
> only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
> election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
> want to have a board of 4 people[0].
>
> All times and dates UTC.
> The nomination period begins now and lasts for 7 days (through the end
> of Aug 30 2021.)
> Voting begins Sept 1 2021 and ends Sept 8 2021.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -A
>
> [0] If the members keep voting to reopen_nominations it will cause the
> seat to be vacant and the board can fill the seat at their pleasure or
> keep it empty. We are basically saying we will fill it; we do not want
> an empty seat.

[gentoo-project] Re: Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Alice]

On 8/23/21 12:11 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> I nominate alicef
> 

Thanks Antaurs,
I accept my nomination.

By way of a manifesto:

Since joining the board, I've taken on the executive tasks of tracking 
motions and more recently managing email and motions for adding new members.
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/sites/projects/foundation.git/tree/motions
I also helped out with managing bugs and updating eventual outcomes.
Some of my work to-do list is archived here:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Alicef#Monthly_Reports ( some data is 
lost as keeping better documentation is something that I need to improve )

In the past years, as a trustee:
- I organized and managed the LF engagement.
I organized the video call with the LF and keep contacts with LF 
engaging by email with questions and summarizing LF answers on 
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:FoundationFutureState#Status:_Linux_Foundation
- I helped in 2017 engage with Software in the Public Interest (SPI) of 
what I made a small report in 2017 
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Alicef/SPIreport for the trustees 
meeting and wrote the recent update about SPI moving ledger to beancount.
   I also became a SPI Contrib Member ( leveraging my old involvement 
with debian ) for helping out eventual move of the GF to the SPI
- I also been able to remove Gentoo from Freenode Acknowledgements list 
after many emails and issue.

My tasks will be to continue my work with the motions and members 
management,
but my top priority will be to move forward the Linux Foundation as an 
umbrella.

----
P.S. This email is not digital signed because of a bug with the mailing 
list visualization and probably Thunderbird. But I can digital sign this 
email by request.

-- 
Thanks,
Alicef

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 20:11 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
> and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
> reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
> will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
> only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
> election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
> want to have a board of 4 people[0].

I'm pretty sure we've originally agreed that reopen_nominations is
present only during the first election, and that we will hold at most
two elections (and both were supposed to take place before the AGM).


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 20:11 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>> Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
>> and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
>> reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
>> will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
>> only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
>> election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
>> want to have a board of 4 people[0].

> I'm pretty sure we've originally agreed that reopen_nominations is
> present only during the first election, and that we will hold at most
> two elections (and both were supposed to take place before the AGM).

What would be the rationale for having different rules in the second
election?

For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]:

   If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
   or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations'
   will be the current council. A second period of nominations will
   be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of
   nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations'
   ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council.

[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20090212-summary.txt

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 20:11 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat
> > > robbat2
> > > and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
> > > reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie
> > > we
> > > will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is
> > > the
> > > only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
> > > election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does
> > > not
> > > want to have a board of 4 people[0].
> 
> > I'm pretty sure we've originally agreed that reopen_nominations is
> > present only during the first election, and that we will hold at
> > most
> > two elections (and both were supposed to take place before the AGM).
> 
> What would be the rationale for having different rules in the second
> election?
> 
> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]:
> 
>    If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
>    or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations'
>    will be the current council. A second period of nominations will
>    be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of
>    nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations'
>    ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council.

Honestly, this seems unclear to me.  Does that mean that Council will
have less members than 7?

IIRC the original concern raised at the time was that we didn't want to
leave seats empty.  Since Trustees can fill the vacancies with their own
choices, it made no sense to reject candidates in the second election,
and we wanted a fixed number of elections to ensure we can fit them into
fixed AGM date.

In other words, I think it was mostly a compromise.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Aaron Bauman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:11:05PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
> and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
> reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
> will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
> only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
> election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
> want to have a board of 4 people[0].
> 
> All times and dates UTC.
> The nomination period begins now and lasts for 7 days (through the end
> of Aug 30 2021.)
> Voting begins Sept 1 2021 and ends Sept 8 2021.
> 
> Thanks,

I nominate:

ajak
anarchy
dilfridge
mattst88
mgorny
rich0
soap
ulm
williamh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:20 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> rich0

Thanks.  I decline - same reasons as before.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> What would be the rationale for having different rules in the second
>> election?
>> 
>> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]:
>> 
>>    If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
>>    or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations'
>>    will be the current council. A second period of nominations will
>>    be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of
>>    nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations'
>>    ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council.

> Honestly, this seems unclear to me.  Does that mean that Council will
> have less members than 7?

Yes, this is how I would read it, and I think the full log of the
meeting fully clarifies that this was the intention.

> IIRC the original concern raised at the time was that we didn't want
> to leave seats empty. Since Trustees can fill the vacancies with their
> own choices, it made no sense to reject candidates in the second
> election, and we wanted a fixed number of elections to ensure we can
> fit them into fixed AGM date.

If Trustees can fill the vacancies, then there's no point in omitting
_reopen_nominations. They could still pick any candidates from below.

So, I think the procedure as announced by antarus makes sense.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:42 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> If Trustees can fill the vacancies, then there's no point in omitting
> _reopen_nominations. They could still pick any candidates from below.
>
> So, I think the procedure as announced by antarus makes sense.

If the election itself fails to actually elect anybody, they can
actually appoint anybody they wish I believe.  (ie, if the reopen
option wins they could just appoint drobbins or a cousin or whatever,
though obviously it would make more sense to just appoint somebody on
the ballot, preferably the one with the most votes.)

They actually can do that right now without another election, though I
do think the course they're taking is a sensible one.

We could spend a lot of time debating the ideal election process, but
in the end if you have only three volunteers for three slots, it is a
bit of a moot argument...

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 213 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Aaron Bauman wrote:

> I nominate:

> [...]
> ulm

Thank you. I must decline again, for the reasons discussed in
#gentoo-trustees (with regard to my status as a state employee).

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[David Seifert]

> I nominate:
> 
> [...]
> soap

This time, I accept.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 10:20 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:11:05PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat robbat2
> > and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and
> > reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie we
> > will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is the
> > only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second
> > election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does not
> > want to have a board of 4 people[0].
> > 
> > All times and dates UTC.
> > The nomination period begins now and lasts for 7 days (through the end
> > of Aug 30 2021.)
> > Voting begins Sept 1 2021 and ends Sept 8 2021.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> 
> I nominate:
> 
[...]

> mgorny
> 

My plate's still full, so I respectfully decline.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:42 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
<snip>

> >> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]:
> >>
> >>    If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
> >>    or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations'
> >>    will be the current council. A second period of nominations will
> >>    be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of
> >>    nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations'
> >>    ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council.
>
> > Honestly, this seems unclear to me.  Does that mean that Council will
> > have less members than 7?
>
> Yes, this is how I would read it, and I think the full log of the
> meeting fully clarifies that this was the intention.
>
>
This is what was approved "back then". The intention was to leave those
candidates that ranked below _reopen_nominations out of the Council, even
if that caused the Council to have less than 7 members.
The 2nd election period was meant to provide an opportunity for new
candidates to come forward or for the electorate to rethink their vote.
AFAIK, the Trustees have always argued that we should not reduce the number
of members in the Board.

Regards,
Jorge

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2221 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:09 PM Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, the Trustees have always argued that we should not reduce the number of members in the Board.
>

Keep in mind that the Council is something that is largely up to
ourselves and so if it becomes a bit dysfunctional we can always just
sort it out and elect a new one or reorganize.

The Foundation is a legal entity, and if there are disputes over who
represents it, these will end up being settled in a court of law.
There is also money and property at stake.  We can't just all get
together and sort it out if something bad happens, because if somebody
should take legal control over the Trustees, they can with one motion
legally boot all the members out, and then we're all fighting it out
in court.

It is just best to keep a few people in the Trustee role so that the
risk of a majority doing something dumb is low.

There was that situation many years ago where it had dwindled down to
I think one person, and there was talk about bringing back drobbins as
a BDFL or whatever.  Without getting into pros and cons I just wanted
to point out that legally it was just the vote of a single person that
mattered - the one remaining Trustee.  If that person had been of the
mind to just do whatever they felt was best in spite of massive
objection, they could have done so, and the legal recourse would have
been so painful that it probably would be easier to just fork and
change the name.

Now, forking is always an option, as we recently saw with IRC
networks.  Still, nobody wants to deal with that if they don't have
to, so it is best to have enough votes on the board that nobody can
just pull the whole thing in some direction.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:42 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > If Trustees can fill the vacancies, then there's no point in omitting
> > _reopen_nominations. They could still pick any candidates from below.
> >
> > So, I think the procedure as announced by antarus makes sense.
>
> If the election itself fails to actually elect anybody, they can
> actually appoint anybody they wish I believe.  (ie, if the reopen
> option wins they could just appoint drobbins or a cousin or whatever,
> though obviously it would make more sense to just appoint somebody on
> the ballot, preferably the one with the most votes.)

I don't believe it is permissible to appoint 'a cousin.' Trustees must
be Gentoo Foundation members and probably also must be active
developers (per section 5.2 of the bylaws.)

>
> They actually can do that right now without another election, though I
> do think the course they're taking is a sensible one.

It seems rather pointless to add a reopen_nominations option to the
election, then have a tie and not reopen_nominations. Hence my
preferences for this solution.

>
> We could spend a lot of time debating the ideal election process, but
> in the end if you have only three volunteers for three slots, it is a
> bit of a moot argument...

This is my biggest challenge overall; the community spends significant
time debating the 'best' way to do some things, but honestly I'm not
sure we always need the 'best' way; we just need *a* way. If the
crappy way and the best way generate the same outcome; I'm not super
eager to devote hours and hours of discussion to generate the same
output; I think there are better ways to spend our time.

-A

>
> --
> Rich
>

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:04 PM Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I don't believe it is permissible to appoint 'a cousin.' Trustees must
> be Gentoo Foundation members and probably also must be active
> developers (per section 5.2 of the bylaws.)

While I certainly don't advocate it, the Trustees can appoint anyone
they wish as a member.  They don't need to be a developer.  There is a
hoop for non-devs to jump through, but the Trustees are the sole judge
of whether the hoop was jumped through.

You need to be a developer to stand for election as a Trustee, not to
be a Trustee.

Like I said, I don't advocate for it, but in practice boards of
organizations tend to have quite a bit of leeway legally.  This is why
it isn't great if nobody wants to be on them...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

Am Montag, 23. August 2021, 16:20:06 CEST schrieb Aaron Bauman:
> I nominate:
> 
[...]
> dilfridge

Thanks, but I must decline, for the same reason as ulm- as civil 
servant I would need to get pre-approval from my employer.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 7:20 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> mattst88

Thanks, but I have to decline.

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

I'd hoped for some more nominees, but lacking that, I'll propose a few
more people who I hope might consider running for trustees (again in
some cases).

anarchy
bkohler
chutzpah
dabbott
floppym
graaff
hanno
jmbsvicetto
maffblaster
neddyseagoon
nerdboy
patrick
swegener
vapier

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1212 bytes --]

On 2021.08.30 05:14, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'd hoped for some more nominees, but lacking that, I'll propose a few
> more people who I hope might consider running for trustees (again in
> some cases).
> 
> anarchy
> bkohler
> chutzpah
> dabbott
> floppym
> graaff
> hanno
> jmbsvicetto
> maffblaster
> neddyseagoon
> nerdboy
> patrick
> swegener
> vapier
> 
> -- 
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
> 


Thank your for the nomination but I'll decline. 

I'm still able go head off any time, in any direction for any length of time,
as soon as its safe. That could be a while as the area of the UK where
I like has the highest Covid infection rate and joint highest death rate in
Scotland.

While I'm declining my nomination due to my long term unreliability, I'll
help out getting short term things done. That does not require the two
year commitment of taking a seat on the board.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

On 30/08/21 04:14, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'd hoped for some more nominees, but lacking that, I'll propose a few
> more people who I hope might consider running for trustees (again in
> some cases).

<snip>

> jmbsvicetto

<snip>

Robin,

tranks for the vote of confidence, but as an election official I have to
respectfully decline.

Regards,
Jorge

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[David Abbott]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:14 AM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I'd hoped for some more nominees, but lacking that, I'll propose a few
> more people who I hope might consider running for trustees (again in
> some cases).
>
> anarchy
> bkohler
> chutzpah
> dabbott
> floppym
> graaff
> hanno
> jmbsvicetto
> maffblaster
> neddyseagoon
> nerdboy
> patrick
> swegener
> vapier
>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Thank you for the nomination but I'll decline.
I am just too busy at work at the time being.
The story of our times, less people doing more work.
Regards,
David Abbott (dabbott)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Ben Kohler]

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:14 AM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd hoped for some more nominees, but lacking that, I'll propose a few
>> more people who I hope might consider running for trustees (again in
>> some cases).
>>
>> anarchy
>> bkohler
>> chutzpah
>> dabbott
>> floppym
>> graaff
>> hanno
>> jmbsvicetto
>> maffblaster
>> neddyseagoon
>> nerdboy
>> patrick
>> swegener
>> vapier
>>
>> --
>> Robin Hugh Johnson
>> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
>> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
>> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
>> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Thanks but I'm also going to have to decline this year... maybe next one 
though!

-Ben