On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2011, at 15:34, Florian Effenberger wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-10-30 16:34: >>> +1 from my side... do we only need one? >> >> IMHO one is enough, as we had it for the BoD elections. > > Note that, for the BoD elections, Thorsten operated the election software > under my supervision and with the MC observing (I actually asked multiple > members of the MC to validate the results). I recommend that the BoD > continue this approach, with all Election actions conducted in sight of the > full BoD.
I agree: the BoD election should be supervised by the MC and vice-versa. The 'Election Officer' is just the point man, the 'executive officer'. He can be any member designated by the body having oversight of the election. Norbert PS: although I have no direct standing, +1 for Thorsten as Election officer for this MC election. PPS: To complement my previous message regarding a delay between MC and BoD election: Let's say the foundation is effective January 1st 2012. the new Bod would be in place until January 1st 2013 right ? We can designate the current MC as the 'initial MC' until June 1st, and have the soon to be elected MC enter in function June 1st 2012 to June 1st 2013 If the view is that the current BoD mandate expire End of October 2012, then the same reasoning apply except that the new MC become 'active' April 1st. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
