On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 23:40 -0500, inode0 wrote: > While I agree with that motivation I think we should also follow > FESCo's example of how to do an orderly transition without overturning > the results of a previous election. The idea that four people, > regardless of their composition, can overturn election results for > three others I find pretty offensive. > > > In order to make this change happen, we need to make a cut at some > > point. No matter if it happens sooner or later, some members will only > > be able to serve FAmSCo for 6 months. > > There is a big difference between the electorate deciding who those > members are and four members of FAmSCo deciding. > I think that John has make a better explanation of why this may be seen as wrong. This leaves me pondering if we need to amend elections rules, that famsco has to reach a higher rate or been unanimous to change the election rules. But again I am afraid this may block any future change, as it has been too hard to reach this point. I opted for this in the spirit to speed things up, maybe it was a mistake by rushing. But I did not looked numbers for deciding, and even I offered to step down voluntarily in order to have these new rules in place sooner. Thanks for your comments, you always put the things in perspective. -- Neville https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Yn1v Linux User # 473217 _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
