Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >>> 1. Due to the tardiness in the election process, there was no council >>> meeting in September. Will this council have 11 meetings or will its >>> term end in September of next year? >> >> There's no need for us to be so strict. I see no reason why the new >> Council can't have their full year. In fact, I'm so confident in it >> being all fair to give them a full year that I propose we just accept it >> and not bother discussing it further. ;] The previous 2 Councils had >> their 12 meetings, why shouldn't this one? >> >>> 2. Regardless of the decision about the above, we should define a clear >>> schedule for the council's election to ensure that the previous issue >>> doesn't happen anymore. Given that we have a 1 month election period for >>> the council, preceded by a 15 day(?) nomination period, that means that >>> the election process must start before the last meeting of the existing >>> council. So, if the election were to be held during August, the >>> nomination should start on July 15th. I propose the election officials >>> be chosen at the same date - so as not to delay the process. >> >> Let's assume that the new Council will preside from October through >> September. This would have elections done by September 30th, and >> nominations starting on August 1st, as we usually do 1 month for >> nominations and one month for voting. >> > > I agree with you on both points. ++ > However, the council still needs to "approve" it as it is a "change of > policy" and so that no one has any doubts / objections later. > I still insist that the election officials should be selected as soon as > the nomination period starts to avoid any delays on the voting - we > should never again enter an election without having election officials. > Agreed, as it leaves Gentoo without a Council for a month, and you could end up with no consistency at all viz date of elections. Stating that the officials must be selected before the nomination process can be started, and that the same deadline applies (one month of nominations, one of voting) seems like good planning. Might as well get the whole process sorted with one vote and move on.
I also concur with whoever said Council meeting notifications should be discussed on project (maybe a reply-to project for the notification if it needs to go to dev to ensure everyone sees it) since the discussion is rarely about technical stuff, despite that being most of the work which the Council does. Even for technical matters, the discussions i have seen at least on dev about Council decisions, have always been contentious and veered off into non-technical aspects (which is probably why they're on the Council agenda in the first place.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
